Thursday, 8 October 2015

If you have been paying attention to recent events, then you will know that there has been yet another mass shooting, this time at a college campus in Oregon. President Barrack Obama has used this tragedy to once again push for increased gun control, and apparently plans on enacting increased gun control via executive order (so much for "representational democracy" and due process, I guess.) Meanwhile, anti-gun nuts are demanding guns to be banned, and claim that such measures were successfully undertaken in Australia, etc. The problem is that gun control does NOTHING to deter gun crime, and there is no link between high gun ownership and high murder rates. Let's look at guns per 100 citizens, and compare them to intentional homicides per 100,000.

The US tops the guns per 100 citizens list at 88.8 guns per 100 citizens. If the anti-gun nuts are right, then the US presumably must have the highest murder rate, right? Well, the US has an intentional homicide rate of 4.5 per 100,000 citizens. The country with the highest murder rate is Honduras, at a staggering 90.2 per 100,000 citizens, but only 6.2 guns per 100 citizens. Now, some anti-gun nuts will at this point claim that they are only referring to "developed nations." The problem, of course, is that the term "developed nation" is not a well-defined term at all. Secondly, the majority of developed nations have substantially higher gun ownership figures than Australia and the UK (two of the most oft-appealed to nations.)

Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 citizens, which is almost 7 times the gun figures of the UK and just over three times the gun figures of Australia. Switzerland has a murder rate of 0.6 per 100,000 citizens... which is lower than both the UK and Australia. Other nations are as follows:
Finland: 45.3 guns per 100 citizen, 1.6 intentional homicides per 100,000

(**The Small Arms Survey lists the gun ownership rates and figures for England & Wales as a single entry, with Scotland and Northern Ireland as separate entries. I added together the number of guns and the population for each to arrive at 6.5 for the whole UK).

Japan has an equal murder rate to Iceland, despite having roughly 2% of the guns Iceland has. Both Australia and the UK have higher murder rates than five of the countries in the prior list. There simply is no correlation between high gun ownership and high murder rates. Whilst some try to appeal to 'developed nations' there are nations that such individuals would not classify as "developed" but nevertheless have higher gun ownership and low murder rates. Consider Serbia, which has 37.8 guns per 100 citizens. Serbia has a murder rate of 1.2 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens. So, less guns does not magically make murder disappear. (You can find the stats for international murder rates here, and the stats for international gun ownership here.) Moreover, there is no evidence that gun control has done anything to stop incidences of mass shootings. A paper published in the Justice Policy Journal specifically examining the question of whether or not gun control reduced mass shootings in Australia states the following:

“The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.“

For those interested, New Zealand has a gun ownership rate of 22.6 guns per 100 citizens, and a murder rate of 0.9 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens.

Moreover, it seems as if banning guns in the UK has actually led to an increase in crime:

The anomalies referred to in the first image are the murders of Harold Shipman, which were all added to the data together in the year 2003 (he didn't use guns, by the way.)

Going back to the US, gun murders are down 49% since 1993. Whereas, 92% of all mass shootings in the US since 2009 have occurred in either "gun-free zones", such as schools, or in areas where it is prohibitively difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally own guns, such as L.A. County. Indeed, this recent mass shooting took place on a campus college in a school. Because criminals prefer victims who are unarmed and unable to in any way defend themselves. Meanwhile, in pro-gun states and areas where it is not difficult for law-abiding to obtain firearms for defensive purposes, guns are used to stop would be crimes and would be mass shootings before they even happen, sometimes without even having to fire a shot. Lastly, research shows that criminals in the US by and large buy guns, not from firearms stores, but friends and family and their preferred firearm type was pistols, not "assault weapons." For the love of God, stop making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. There are plenty of ways to prevent further incidents of mass shootings: heavily penalise those who allow their firearms, whether willingly or through negligence, fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill, make concealed carry licenses easier to obtain in states where they are prohibitively difficult to obtain, promote gun safety, better mental health care and, by extension, better healthcare in general (this means getting the government out of healthcare and instituting a genuinely free-market healthcare system.)

Thursday, 27 August 2015

It never ceases
to amaze me at just how economically illiterate people really are. Of course,
professional ‘economists’ are little better, as they are simply individuals who
are paid to guess wrong about the economy. The answer to the question: ‘what is
the cause of our economic woes?’ is easily answered by anybody who has spent
any amount of time studying history and the relevant aspects of economic
theory. The problem is excessive government meddling in market forces. We often
hear the odious whines of Guardianistas who are only too quick to blame
‘unfettered free-market capitalism’ as they sip their overpriced Starbucks coffee,
spewing forth bile from their MacBooks, iPads, and iPhones. Yet, if we had
generally free-market capitalism, how then do we have a centrally planned complex
regulatory economic system that includes things such as VAT, duty taxes,
government licensing, etc.? A protectionist system is inherently the exact
opposite of a genuinely free-market system. Indeed, not just in the UK, but in
the US, and much of the world, we have an inherently protectionist, centrally
planned economy. Not to the extent of the few remaining socialists states, such
as Venezuela, but such a regulatory apparatus nevertheless exists and is a
continuous economic drain. The most insidious form of government regulation
exists in the form of central banking. The UK, the US, and the EU all have a
central bank. The Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, and the European
Central Bank.

A central bank is
the bank that manages a state’s currency, money supply, and interest rates. The
central bank issues the national currency to commercial banks. This is
inherently problematic, since interest rates are meant to reflect the state of
the market. Yet, this cannot be done if it is being artificially set by a
central bank. Indeed, the government response to economic crisis is to set
interest rates low, but this distorts market forces since the signals that
could be used to tell investors the health of the economy have been altered, subverting
the market process. Having a state-issued currency is also problematic, which
might surprise some. Since only the central bank is allowed to create new
money, people other than the central bank who try to make their own money are
considered ‘counterfeiters.’ One of the functions of the central bank is to
print money, a policy called ‘quantitative easing.’ However, the more bank
notes there are, the less the currency is worth. This is because we have what
is called a fiat currency, which means our currency is just paper not backed by
any kind of physical commodity, such as gold or silver. If our money were
backed by a physical commodity, then new bank notes could only be created
through the acquisition of new physical commodity. Whereas, on a fiat currency,
money can be printed endlessly, which causes the value of each bank note to
decrease. This is called inflation, and one of the effects of this is to
decrease the real value of wages and increase the real value of prices. You
will still be being paid the same wage, but you will notice that, after a few
years, you can’t afford as much as you used to be able to. This is price
inflation, a direct result of monetary inflation.

If other banks
were allowed to print their own money, then the central bank would go out
business if it kept printing its own money ad
infinitum, as its currency would become worthless. Moreover, if we had a
currency or currencies backed by physical commodities, such as gold, silver,
then price inflation would not take place. Prices would only go up and down in
relation to supply and demand. Since we do not have these systems, prices do
not necessarily reflect supply and demand, as they can be inflated via bubbles.
For instance, the US housing market crash. The US government under the
administration of Bill Clinton, told banks that they had to provide mortgages
to low income families who previously would have been unable to afford a
mortgage. The effect of this was to cause house prices to skyrocket (which
government officials and ‘economists’ think is a good thing) and resulted in a
crash as, surprise, surprise, the low income families who could not afford
mortgages could not afford to pay the mortgages the government told the banks
to provide them with. Free banking and sound money would also put an end to the
practice of fractional reserve banking, which is where banks loan out roughly
90% of their reserves, rather than 10%. With free banking and sound money, such
risky practices would either not be engaged in at all, or only engaged in very
rarely.

Now, whilst the
Guardianistas complain about the ‘evil’ and ‘greedy’ corporations, their
proposed solution of more government intervention and regulation to stop
corporations from being evil and greedy is particularly hair-brained and
nonsensical when we consider the fact that the only reason corporations are
allowed to exist and engage in anti-competition behaviour is because they are
propped up and maintained due to government intervention. Wealthy backers of
politicians lobby their pals in government to pass certain legislation that is
beneficial for their company but not their competitors. These politicians then
subsidies these corporations and give them lucrative government contracts,
allowing them to engage in anti-competition practices without suffering the
economic losses that would occur in a free market system. Because, in a
genuinely free market, businesses must live and die on their own merits.
Whereas in our economy, corrupt businesses and corporations can succeed despite
their many palpable and egregious practices. In the US, Democrat senator
Elizabeth Warren claims that ending regulation led to the financial crisis, yet
people ith a memory span of more than five years will be able to point out that
the reason that the commercial banks in the US got bigger is because they were
combined by the regulators.

Regulation is the
best friend of big business and crony corporations. Regulation and licensing
make it more costly to do business, which causes prices to rise. High levels of
taxation also make it more costly and difficult to do business, which, again,
causes prices to rise. With the government in their pocket handing them
contracts and subsidies and effectively handing them a monopoly, these big
businesses and corporations don’t have to play by the rules they would be
subject to in a free-market system. Some people think the solution is to raise
the minimum wage, but anybody with more than half a brain can see that this
would only raise nominal wages, and not real wages. On paper, it will say you
have more, but raising wages artificially will, in turn, make it more costly to
do business, and so prices will rise, unemployment will rise also, and the real
value of wages will DECREASE. You do not fix low wages and unemployment in
order to fix the economy. You fix the economy in order to fix wages and
unemployment. All minimum wage laws accomplish is the outlawing of low paying
jobs, which makes it harder for unskilled workers to get work, and eliminates
entry level jobs. Lots of business nowadays are replacing workers with
automated machines, such as self-service checkouts. As minimum wage laws make
it more costly to do business, business will have no choice but to lay off
workers and replace them with automated machines.

Labour unions are
no better, as they engage in the same nefarious anti-competition behaviour that
hurts workers. For example, the spread of services such as Uber and Lyft,
whilst economically beneficial, are opposed by Taxi labour unions who are
trying to get these services shut down rather than compete fairly. They also
tend to negatively affect non-union members. Despite the common myth that
‘labour unions’ have made conditions better for workers, this is largely
untrue. Technological innovation and competition have made conditions better
for workers. Trade unions, like big business and crony corporatism, do nothing
but hurt workers. They are opposite sides of exactly the same coin. They stifle
competition, which, in turns, stifles innovation. Innovation is the source of
technological advancement, and the betterment of working conditions. The only
people who oppose technological advancement are backwards-thinking Neanderthals
and Luddites. After all, when the motorcar was first invented, it was opposed
by horse and carriage drivers. Yet the invention of the motorcar has vastly
improved conditions for humanity. Some might gripe about pollution from fossils
fuels, but the solution for this is, once again, competition and innovation,
which only comes from free-market capitalism. It is no coincidence that high
oil prices and high energy prices are due, not to the ‘greediness’ of the oil
and energy companies, but because of the excessive amounts of regulations and
taxation that they face.

Whilst the
Guardianistas blame lack of regulation, the Daily Mailers, of course, blame it
all on immigrants and those on benefits. Usually with the typical phrase: ‘they
stole our jobs.’ Yet, immigration has ZERO effect on any of the economically
suicidal policies mentioned. The only reason immigrants might be a drain on the
economy is because the economy is already doing badly. The solution, then, is
not to ban immigration, but to fix the economy. The UK and US in particular are
nations built on immigration. First the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, and the
Vikings. More recently, people from India, Jamaica, and various African
nations. Now that it is people from the Middle East and Eastern Europe there is
suddenly a problem? Of course, opposition to immigration is also justified by
claiming terrorists are coming into our country, but, we have to remember, the
whole reason there are a lot of terrorist groups operating in the Middle East
is because they were either funded and set-up by the West, or arisen due to a
power vacuum left in the wake of a foreign incursion by Western nations. The
current Iranian regime was the result of a revolution in the 1970s that was a
response to the US backing a corrupt Shah. The current conflict in Ukraine is a
direct result of Western meddling. Western agents helped instigate and provoke
the protests that ousted the pro-Russian president, and his replacements were
backed by the US and EU. Incidentally, a number of the new Ukrainian leaders
turned out to have neo-Nazi sympathies.

Constant meddling
in the affairs of foreign regions causes instability and power imbalances,
which allows radicals to gain power and influence. Today’s freedom fighters
usually turn out to be tomorrow’s terrorists. The US, after all, funded Bin
Laden, et al. during the 1980s to fight the Soviets. The Syrian rebels funded
by the West became ISIS. Prior to the modern Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was
funded in the 70s by the West, and, using that funding, was able to acquire and
then use chemical and biological weapons not just on the Iranians during the
Iran-Iraq war, but also on the Kurds living in Iraq. Saddam Hussein then went
on to invade Kuwait using the funding and weapons supplied to him by the west.
Former Libyan leader, Muammar Gadaffi, was also funded by the West. Moreover,
constant military intervention overseas combined with constant foreign aid
spending is a huge drain on the economy. Instead of punishing the poor by
cutting benefits spending, we could cut military intervention overseas and
foreign aid spending instead. Whereas today, a lot of immigrants are coming
from nations WE have bombed. So, if we do not want immigrants coming from
war-torn nations, we should probably stop bombing them.

When it comes to
benefits, if we want people to come off of benefits, we need to first fix the
economy. A lot of working people are reliant on benefits such as child tax
credit and housing benefit just to survive. Whereas, benefit fraud is actually
largely negligible, especially in comparison to fraudulent MP expense claims
and tax evasion. As a side note, I don’t mind people dodging taxes, as taxes
are too high. I do mind it, however, when the people doing the tax dodging are
ones who are responsible for the high levels of taxation in the first place
whilst insisting that we are all ‘in this together.’ Taxation is insanely high:
VAT is 20%, our top income tax rate is 50%, corporation tax is 35%. This is
insane and completely unjustifiable to anybody who isn’t an ideological stooge.
Contrary to what those on the left say, the poor do indeed pay taxes, and pay
into a system that robs them of their choices. We have to pay a TV license
regardless of whether we watch the state funded BBC. We have to pay special
duty taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Yet, government spending continues to
climb. How about, instead of punishing the populace through taxation, we cut
government spending? Again, if we withdrew from foreign conflicts, and ended
all foreign aid we would save a lot of money. Withdrawal from the authoritarian
EU is a must, and we should cut ties with organisations such as the IMF, etc.

Aside from simple
economics, most people are functionally illiterate when it comes to social
issues also, as evidenced by the stance of certain individuals when it comes to
immigration. Healthcare is another issue where common sense is nowhere to be
found in the minds of the populace. We are told that the NHS is the ‘envy of
the world,’ yet the quality of NHS hospitals is generally quite poor and the
waiting lists are atrocious. However, people erroneously claim that the
opposite of this is the American system. Yet, the American healthcare system is
not one of free-markets at all, but is subject to a similar complex regulatory
system. Healthcare is NOT a right, since we are not entitled to the goods,
services, and/or labour of another. Since healthcare requires the goods,
services, and/or labour of others, it cannot be a right by definition. The same
applies to benefits, actually. If we want to help poor people, then we need to
fix the economy. Benefits should only be a short-term solution. It is no
coincidence that those on the left are some of the least charitable people on
the planet. They assume everybody is as uncharitable as themselves, and so
think it is up to the government to force people to give money to the poor.
(Never mind, either, that this is a MASSIVE fundamental human rights violation,
since we are not entitled to the property of others.)

People say we
need the NHS because the price of healthcare is high, and not all can afford
basic healthcare. Except the reason prices are high is because of government
regulation and meddling in the healthcare system. Needless bureaucracy is one
particular problem we face in the UK. If all Hospitals were privately run, and
we ended the complex regulation that governs prices of healthcare, healthcare
would be affordable. One reason healthcare is expensive in the US is not
because Hospitals are privately run, but because of the hoops pharmaceutical
companies have to jump through, the rise of ‘big pharma’ due to government
favouritism. The regulation governing medical schools has made the number of
healthcare providers in the US more scarce. Moreover, the health insurance
system in the US is totally broken. It is not like car insurance where you pay
premiums and, in the event you occur a cost you cannot immediately cover, the
insurance company covers it. Health insurance in the US is not like this. It
also does not help that Barrack Obama passed an act requiring US citizens to
purchase health insurance by law or face fines and penalties. This is exactly
like the sub-prime mortgage crisis/housing bubble under the Clinton
administration.

In a genuine
free-market healthcare system, we would simply not have the problems that the
US system face. Since the US system is not a free-market system, but a hybrid
of private ownership and government regulation. Another way we could save money
is by ending bans on certain classes of voluntary interactions. For instance,
drugs, guns, etc. The only reason such things are banned are due to the
hysterical, irrational shrieking of the uninformed, vapid, supercilious,
condescending, preening twits who think they know what is best for us better
than we do. Human beings have a right to self-defence, self-determination,
freedom of association, liberty, etc. Any mutual exchange and voluntary
exchange should be legal. This would have a drastic effect on prison
populations, as ending victimless crimes would mean a decrease in prisoners.
Gun ownership by law abiding citizens would deter crime, lowering the number of
criminals, and thus prisoners, which would save a lot of money. This is essence
of the non-aggression principle. Acts of initiatory violence and aggression are
always immoral, and the only legitimate use of violence is in self-defence against
an aggressor (as long as it bears a reasonable relation to the level of threat
presented.) Thus, if people want to take certain drugs, they are free to. I can
warn them about the consequences, and, if I really care about them, I can do my
best to dissuade them, but, ultimately, it is their choice. If someone wants to
kill themselves, or wants to die via assisted suicide, then that is their
choice. If someone wants to enter into a relationship with a member of the same
gender as themselves, then that is their choice.

Of course, some
try to smuggle in abortion under this rubric, but it is clear that this is not
the case since abortion is an act that negatively affects the unborn child
without their consent. Human rights apply to all human beings, apply even to
unborn humans. Unless we are to imagine that a human is made only when a clump
of cells infused with mother’s intent makes contact with delivery room air. It
is also apparent that businesses are free to discriminate however they like,
contrary to those baying for the blood of the Christian bakers who dared refuse
bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. The thought police social justice warriors
will claim that, in supporting such a right, we are somehow opposed to
equality. This is once again evidence of a maxim once spoken by the esteemed
intellectual Frederic Bastiat. Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it
springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result
of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, we object to
its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists
say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then
the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a
state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on,
and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons
to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Simply put, why
can’t we give freedom and liberty a try? We have tried central planning, and
complex government regulation. Whether it is in the form of pure socialism or
the half-private/half-public mixed economy we have now, the result is always
the same. Economic ruin and stagnation. Sure, policy makers can stave off such
disaster temporary, but they can only ever postpone the inevitable. Government
regulation feeds boom-bust cycles, which simply would not occur in a
free-market system. The only people who say otherwise are dyed-in-the-wool
faith heads who place their hope in the almighty government to save the day.
For authoritarianism and statism is a religion, and government is like any idol
or graven image to which men and women ascribe supernatural and divine powers.
What can the government not do if only we have faith in it? Whereas, those with
more than only half a brain; those who base their beliefs on evidence, logic,
and reason; will know that the reverse is true. Opposition to government
meddling is based on the level headed realisation that thousands of years of
government intervention has only ever retarded economic growth and led to
nothing but stagnation, death, and misery. The mayhem of free-market capitalism
is wholly conjectural and without the slightest shred of corroborating evidence.
The mayhem of government is wholly undeniable, wholly factual, and wholly
horrendous.

Wednesday, 26 August 2015

With the upcoming 2016 presidential election on the horizon and the various EU crises, we have, of course, seen a slew of anti and pro immigration propaganda being spewed forth by a variety of buffoons. We have also seen the same types of know-nothing ivory tower politicians decry, of all things, free trade. That's right, these people don't just support preventing the free movement of people, they also support protectionism and central economic planning. Not that this comes as a surprise to me. The mainstream politicians of the left and centre "right" are, of course, nothing but authoritarians who hate freedom. All they are interested in is the maintenance of power, and, for that, they need to keep in place the complex regulatory framework that keeps them at the top. Even though liberty and freedom, both economically and socially, is the cure for the economic stagnation centuries of statism have inflicted upon us, they eschew both things since to allow such things would be to rob themselves of power.

Immigration is not the driving factor behind economic instability, although it can add onto it if the conditions aren't right. For instance, allowing uncontrolled waves of migrants from incompatible cultures is a particularly bad idea, because it prevents migrants from settling to the new culture, and puts strain on the economy. Whereas controlled migration can greatly benefit a culture. Some have objected to controlled migration on the basis of libertarian philosophy, however, this is misguided.

“In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees, and trespassers – not legal and illegal immigrants.” – Jeff Deist

Of course, some insist that the free movement of peoples is a good thing, however, uncontrolled migration is a provably disaster. Of course, one charge made against opponents of uncontrolled migration is that they are racists and xenophobes. Whilst some opponents of migration might oppose all forms of immigration, and might genuinely be racist and or xenophobic, this does nothing to undermine the case for controlled migration. Uncontrolled migration is a palpable disaster, and this is very easy to show.

Now, whilst racists and xenophobes have seized on this to push for their agenda, it does not undermine the case for controlled migration. To argue otherwise would to be to commit a guilt by association fallacy. Moreover, trying to silence people and labelling everybody who disagrees with you as racists does nothing to combat the views of actual racists, et al. It just breeds resentment and allows extremist views to take further hold amongst those who otherwise might not have considered such views. The reason Donald Trump is so popular is because of the sheer devastation the political elites have wrought and the sheer contempt they have for poor and working class people. People are pissed off about being spat on and treated with contempt. Political correctness, etc. made Donald Trump possible.

Free trade is also a bedrock of economic prosperity. Voluntary and exchange and interaction is simply what trade is. Whenever the government gets in the way, certain interactions are prohibited, others are forced, and money is lost on bureaucracy and waste. And since the government is inherently corrupt to its very core and only interested in maintaining power, it bends to the will of those who back them financially, and end up passing legislation favourable to said parties. This results in artificial monopolies, and mega-corporations who no longer to have to compete fairly. Prices go up, and smaller businesses have to close. Jobs are lost as a result.

Now, what arguments are there against these positions? The most popular anti-immigration argument is that immigrants 'steal jobs.' This is, of course, false. Unless you have been fired and had your job replaced by an immigrant, then, no, nobody is 'stealing' your jobs. Immigrants come to a country and get hired. This is somehow considered problematic. Of course, unemployment is rising, and there aren't enough jobs to go around. Except the reason for low jobs and high unemployment is because of government intervention, not immigration.

The obvious solution is to end the economically suicidal policies that lead to high unemployment, etc. and you don't fix the economy by "creating" jobs, you create jobs by fixing the economy. It really is that simple. Moreover, if there are no jobs, then there are no jobs for immigrants to steal. As a side note, some of the staunchest anti-immigration pundits in the US are sons of immigrants, some of whom entered the US in a not entirely legal way. It also worth noting that the biggest anti-immigration voices have never worked the kind of jobs that immigrants typically work.

Opening the borders and doing away with all regulations immediately without making any changes to the disastrous and economically suicidal policies currently being employed might be irresponsible. Refusing to change those disastrous and economically suicidal policies and maintaining closed/regulated borders is far worse, however. Now, the correct approach to 'fixing the problems' is not clear, since it depends on how one views things. Either, we do away with everything in well fell swoop, which would cause a massive restructuring of society, or we implement fixes incrementally, to reduce the upheaval caused by fixing the hideously broken system we have. In other words, the difference between ripping off a plaster, or peeling it off slowly. Yet, it is certain, clear, and obvious what the correct stances and policies should be.

Essentially, focusing on immigration is a red herring, since the cause of economic stagnation has nothing to do with immigrants. Opposing free trade, on the other hand, is to oppose economic stability, recovery, and growth. It is no coincidence that some of the biggest anti-immigration voices are staunchly opposed to free trade, and support higher taxes. This is simply backwards thinking that will make our economic woes worse. For more, see: http://reason.com/archives/2015/08/24/the-trump-recession

Sunday, 10 May 2015

Hello there. If you're wondering what 'fourth wave feminism' is, then don't worry. It's a term I suddenly thought of when pondering the history of GamerGate. I then Googled the term, and it seems as if there are instances of actual usage of such a term as far back as 2005. As most will know, third wave feminism had relatively little in the way of things to protest again, as today, sexism and misogyny has largely been swept away. Indeed, actual examples of sexism and misogyny are genuinely hard to come by these days, which should lead one to imagine that feminism has achieved its goals in the liberation of women from oppression in the west, and that the time has come to focus on helping women in countries where sexist and misogynistic attitudes still reign supreme. Yet, far from declaring victory, modern feminists are still adamant that women are being oppressed by "the patriarchy." Whilst radical fruitcakes have existed in feminism as a whole before now, it seems as if such individuals are now a much larger portion of feminism. Indeed, as time has gone on, and the genuine victories of feminism have increased, the proportion of feminists that are complete nutcases seems to have increased.In the past couple of years, the number of radical feminists seems to have exploded, flinging their feculence across the Internet into people's faces like a stream of sewage coming unbidden into one's home. They have taken it upon themselves to find problems where none exist and force their viewpoint down the throats of others, infiltrating and inserting themselves wherever possible. Yet, despite claiming to be oppressed by an imaginary "patriarchy" various politically correct media outlets and their social justice warrior followers have blindly followed the radical feminists in their cause, and have thus opted to construct a sluice to let more of the sewage into society. The most obvious incident is the whole GamerGate saga. As a recent convert to the GamerGate movement, I thought I'd put my two history degrees to use by chronicling the rise of this new, obnoxious form of feminism.We shall start with an incident prior to GamerGate, a similar scandal that rocked another community. An incident known colloquially as elevator gate. To give this event its proper context, it should be first prudent to give the history of the community in which this incident took place: the new atheist community. New Atheism is a term used to refer to a recent movement of atheists, sceptics, et al. who argue that not only is religion wrong, but is evil and needs to be opposed. This movement began with prominent atheist buffoons such as Richard Dawkins publishing books extremely hostile towards religion such as the God Delusion. It is a movement that primarily attracted angsty teenager, 'tweenagers' and similar types. This movement drew upon the philosophical and historical illiteracy of its adherents, but was mostly a reaction to the scientific illiteracy of Young Earth Creationism, and fundamentalism in general. It was also a reaction to the 9/11 attacks carried out by Islamic extremists. Whilst some legitimate criticisms of organised religion were there, they were mostly eclipsed by bile spewing. At its height, it was a movement that had a lot of traction in atheist and unbelieving circles before fizzling out more recently. These movements spawned multiple conferences, with many prominent speakers within the new atheist community. At one of these, feminist sceptic Rebecca Watson made a video criticising what she felt as 'creepy' behaviour on the part of an individual who wanted to discuss her ideas because the individual did so in an elevator.This drew the ire of new atheist 'high priest' Richard Dawkins, which immediately exploded into an online spat between new atheist "loyalists" and various feminists. This also drew the ire of new atheism's unofficial YouTube spokesperson Phil Mason, aka Thunderf00t, and similar YouTubers, such as 'TheAmazingAtheist.' This is where we first really saw this new kind of toxic feminism. The resulting "explosion" caused a divide in the new atheist community. Those siding with the feminists created a short-lived movement 'Atheism+', whose members included professional whiner and producer of festering offal, P Z Myers, and the historical revisionist pathological liar, Richard Carrier. Essentially, they tried to hijack the new atheist movement in order to spread their feminist ideals. Eventually, the whole new atheist movement disintegrated, in part because of the divide, but also because more people were beginning to realise that this anti-religious sentiment was no different to the fundamentalism these people claimed to oppose.
Thunderf00t in his heyday was involved in numerous online spats with various members of YouTube's disparate collection of religious communities, and, with the whole elevatorgate incident, switched from primarily attacking religion, to focusing on the attempts of feminists to hijack atheism. Thunderf00ts change of subject area is what initially led me to discover this new wave of toxic feminism, as his critiques included critical reviews of various new and upcoming feminists. His videos cover feminists activities in between elevatorgate and gamergate. Thus, the elevatorgate incident coincided with a rise in awareness of a new form of feminism, and an increase in its activities. In fact, Thunderf00t and TheAmazingAtheist are perhaps responsible for bringing this new feminism to the attention of the religious and atheist communities on YouTube, with videos on the subject from commentators such as MrRepzion and AlphaOmegaSin.Various of these new feminists and their activities are what led to the incident now known as GamerGate, which I have already chronicled separately. The chief incident is the whole Zoe post saga, where Eron Gjoni published the shady activities of his ex-girlfriend, game developer Zoe Quinn, who had engaged in numerous sexual affairs with video game journalists in exchange for positive reviews and support of her patreon account. This blatant media corruption sparked the ire of video gamers reliant on video game journalism. This coincided with the activities of Anita Sarkeesian, a demonstrable fraud, liar and con-artist, and Brianna Wu, who was also implicated in some corrupt dealings. The ire of gamers was brought to bear, but was easily painted as harassment due to the involvement of various third party trolls sending hate mail and death threats, and doxxing individuals. The hate mail on Twitter was sent via brand new 'egg accounts' and similar. As with elevatorgate, the radical feminists swarmed in droves, but this time, they were backed by various media outlets, as well as the unwashed hordes of social justice warriors. The media outlets implicated in corruption obviously needed to cover up their shady dealings and used their influence to tailor reporting on Gamergate in their favour. The feminist/SJW line was represented as fact and repeated uncritically by other, more mainstream media, with the volume of social justice warriors repeating the claims mindlessly seemingly giving the obviously false narrative legitimacy. Social justice warriors are a special kind of online idiot. They have always existed, and have largely consisted of radical feminists, and a whole slew of insane, angsty teenagers, etc. For example, otherkin are people who legitimately believe themselves to be non-human animals trapped in the bodies of humans. Social justice warriors and their feminist allies are responsible for the attempt to redefine terms such as racism and sexism. They are responsible for all kinds of meaningless, bullshit terminology, such as 'truscum' 'cis' and 'genderqueer' amongst other examples. For example, there are SJWs who have invented new pronouns for themselves and become enraged when people do not use them. They mouth meaningless soundbites such as "check your privilege." These idiots are closely related to the rise of fourth wave feminism and speaks of a larger problem: the problem that the Internet is diametrically opposed to quality control, and the problem that the majority of people these days are functionally illiterate. This is a problem noted by author Mark Bauerlein in his book The Dumbest Generation.Despite the explosion of information available via the Internet, people are still as clueless now as they were a century ago, if not more. Comedian Stewart Lee laments whether Johannes Gutenberg could ever foreseen the nightmare scenario where every person in Britain would own a copy of Russell Brand's 'My Bookie Wook,' or if William Tyndale was burnt as the stake for the cause of English vernacular literature so that people could read The Gospel According to Chris Moyles? This is why we see hack historians like Richard Carrier, and philosophically illiterate buffoons such as Lawrence Krauss claiming that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. This is why we see authoritarian conservatives trying to regulate marriage and promoting war in the middle east. This is why we see authoritarian liberals advocating economically suicidal policies and strict controls on what people can own, and eat, etc. This is why impressionable idiots are touting ideologies such as communism and socialism. This is why we see radical feminists, SJWs and other special snowflakes spouting all manner of nonsense.This fourth wave feminism, then, is largely an extension of the larger problem of stupidity in society and the conflict it creates. However, with GamerGate, we can see a concerted effort on those unwilling to put with such vapid, supercilious, preening twits. More people are coming to the realisation that such adopting radical viewpoints and the polarisation of opposing viewpoints is wrong. GamerGate is now a movement of many different types of people. The dawn of GamerGate coincided with the rise of a number of critics all of differing backgrounds. YouTubers SargonOfAkkad, MundaneMatt and Shoe0nhead, Twitter shitposter extraordinaire Chobitcoin/Airport, feminist scholar Christina Hoff Summers, actor Adam Baldwin, adult film actress Mercedes Carrera, renowned YouTube game critic John Bain aka TotalBiscuit, journalist Milo Yiannopoulos aka Nero, and has received support from the likes of Jim Sterling and Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw of Zero Punctuation. Those involved in GamerGate are banding together to promote free speech, the exchange and debate of different ideas and true equality.So, who are the fourth wave feminists? Aside from con artist Anita Sarkeesian, and professional victims Zoe Quinn, and Brianna Wu, we have Arthur Chu, a man whose claim to fame is being on Jeopardy, Chris Kluwe, a former athlete who thinks being patronising and making racist jokes is a good substitute for argument, Suey Park, a woman who tried to get Steven Colbert's show cancelled for making jokes she didn't like, Melody Hensley, a woman who claimed that Twitter gave her PTSD, Jessica Valenti, a Guardanista who thinks wearing t-shirts saying "<i>I drink male tears</i> is acceptable, Laurie Penny, a woman who thinks it is okay to deface war memorials, and a whole slew of similar people, all of whom from well-off, privileged backgrounds and in positions of relative power in society. Despite claiming oppression at the hand of the "patriarchy" and defining sexism as discrimination + power, they themselves are in positions of power and use their influence to try and oppress those who do not share this view. Nowhere is this more evident when they try and shout down women who do not subscribe to their insane views. For example, feminists and SJWs bullied Kaley Cuoco into apologising for the simple crime of saying she liked cooking for her husband and didn't need feminism.They are even willing to turn on their own, as evidenced when Joss Whedon received substantial amounts of abuse from radical feminists on Twitter for his handling of the character Black Widow in Avengers: Age of Ultron. Much like the Twilight Zone episode <i>the Obsolete Man</i> where the government official presiding over the sentencing of a librarian to death is himself sentenced to death as he is deemed by the state to have outlived his usefulness. Although in an apparent display of cognitive dissonance and Stockholm Syndrome, Whedon has claimed radical feminists weren't responsible for ousting him from Twitter, even going so far as to post a picture of him posing with Anita Sarkeesian herself. This is the goal of fourth wave feminists and those like them: total conformity and the stifling of different ideas and viewpoints. They also subscribe to the idea that certain ideas cannot be criticised or challenged. They construe everything in terms of collective, homogenised identities. Everybody is clearly identifiable as belonging to a certain, specific group. Groupthink, and conformity is valued above critical thinking and individualism.Fourth wave feminism is a toxic ideology, however, one that is increasingly being challenged. I've been Rational Gaze and, in many ways, I still am. See you later shitlords! For those wishing to submit hate mail, please fill out the following form and submit it in hand-written triplicate:

Monday, 6 April 2015

Despite talking principally about Christian apologetics, I do sometimes talk about politics. Today, I am going to talk about both. It is alarming to me just how many Christians think it is perfectly okay to legislate Christian morality through the state. When you use the institution of the state to force your values on other people, two things happen. First, if you succeed, you can no longer identify who the people that disagree with you are any longer, since they would have to comply with your ideas, or be threatened with fines, which is ultimately backed by the threat of prison, which, in turn, is ultimately backed by violence. Second, you open the door wider to invite others to lobby the same institution (the state and their edicts, i.e. "law") to have their will enforced also. What happens when a country's will becomes unified under some crazy person's ideas? Nazi Germany comes to mind. The communist revolution in Russia is another. Believing in your heart that your belief is the right one or the correct one and that everyone else must abide by and comply with it, or be threatened by the state, is more wrong than the problem that you believe you are solving. Keep in mind that the problem would still exist. It would just be suppressed through threats of violence. All of the consequences that result from government edict enforcers getting involved in whatever issue you want them to are too unknown and too vast to ever understand. Even if 99% of the world agreed with your view. The moment institutional violence is introduced as a method to solve the issue, you become the very thing you seek to end.

People have a choice whether or not to follow Jesus, and, as Jesus Himself said, to love Jesus is to follow His commandments. In other words, to become a Christian is to choose to follow Jesus' commandments (amongst other things.) Thus, by trying to legislate such commandments via the institution of government is to remove choice, and is thus tantamount to forced conversions in all but name. We as Christians are supposed to spread Christianity through evangelism, ministry, preaching, and by being living examples to others. It is up to each and every person whether or not they choose to heed the Holy Spirit. Moreover, to legislate such commandments via the state would be to take a step backwards to the legalism of the pharisees and the Old Testament. Jesus, after all, had come to fulfil the law of the OT and to bring about a New Covenant. Ironically enough, I saw a fellow who actually argued that God favoured monarchy because He gave His support to Constantine. Now, aside from being something that is completely unfounded and not even in the Bible, he seems to ignore the part in the Old Testament where God got angry with the Israelites because they kept demanding a king. This same fellow responded by claiming, with zero justification, that their sin was in demanding kingship "too early." In reality, their sin was in demanding an earthly king because God was their King in Heaven. By demanding an earthly kingship was as insult to God's Heavenly Kingship, and the Bible is pretty clear that this was the issue.

Even the Old Covenant, however, was not a system of force. The Old Covenant was, as the name implies, a legal contract between God as King and His people, the Israelites. It was a contract they freely entered into and consistently chose to remain in. Another consideration is the fallen, corrupt nature of mankind. God is our King because He is perfect. He is a maximally great being with every great making property, and, as such, can never be fooled, tempted, or corrupted. Humans, on the other hand, are fallible beings. We can be bribed, tempted, etc. Certain Christians claim and insist that 'strong Christian leaders' in government is a step in the right direction. They ignore the fact that people can lie and lie through their teeth. We have had allegedly Christian leaders in governments in Europe for over a thousand years. American leaders have professed Christianity since the nation's inception. Yet I sincerely doubt that very many of them were actually genuine believers in Christ, maybe even none of them were/are.

However, not only is it immoral to force Christian beliefs into people, not only does such ideas contradict the Bible and the teachings of Christ, not only does such an idea give insult to God's Heavenly Kingship, but they simply don't work. You cannot achieve any meaningfully long-term good results by trying to institute them by force. Why else did prohibition fail in 1920s America? Why else is the current drug war in Europe and North American failing miserably now? Why else has almost a century of meddling and intervention in foreign nations constantly undermined peace and stability? As Christians, we are called to be like Christ, and Christ voluntarily served His people. God respects the free will of His creatures. As such, the only political viewpoint I can subscribe too that is compatible with Christian values is voluntarism. Voluntarism is simply the idea that interactions between human beings should be mutual and voluntarily. A related principle is the principle of non-aggression: initiatory violence is never permitted; violence is only ever okay when it is used reasonably in self-defence. You cannot call yourself a Christian if you support a political system or ideology that is based on institutional corruption and/or violence. It is for this reason that I reject socialism, democracy, monarchism, republicanism, etc. Well, that and the fact that none of these political systems work or have ever worked. Put simply, voluntarism is the only political viewpoint that is logically compatible with Christ's teaching.

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Some of todays hot political issues concern the current conflict in Ukraine, the recent vote on whether or not Scotland should leave the United Kingdom, the British referendum over membership in the EU looming on the horizon. Aside from these, the status of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar as British overseas territories is causing political tension between Britain on the one hand, and Argentina & Spain on the other. Now, let's start with Ukraine. So, the short story is, Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia, and this has inspired several other eastern Ukrainian cities to decide to cut ties with Ukraine also.

Now, 'the West' claims that Crimea was forcibly annexed, and that the 'pro-Russian' separatist movements were engineered by Russia. Of course, the pro-Russian ex-president of Ukraine was forcibly overthrown by mobs of pro-EU protesters, who were set up and agitated by undercover Western agents, and was replaced by a pro-EU, pro-Western puppet government (some of whom were neo-Nazis.) Ironically enough, the secession attempts being led by these Ukrainian cities are being declared as "illegal." Of course, what one has to remember is: the American Revolutionary War was "illegal" too. What matters is what the people want: the principle of self-determination. As such, this is nothing more than the Western political elite trying to force their brand of authoritarianism down people's throats as if it were holy writ.

With regards to Scotland: on one hand we have the Scottish Nationalist Party (their name should be a red flag to anybody with more than half a brain) demanding a referendum on Scottish membership of the UK. On the other hand, we have the British government trying to do all in their power to preserve the 'union.' Now, if the Scottish people wanted to leave the UK, that would be fine, but this is simply Alex Salmond and co. flapping their mouths about things the Scottish people don't care about. The answer to the vote was a resounding: NO. Salmond and the SNP are now demanding another vote.

Of course, not that I side with the British government. I don't really see the need for the UK. Why can't England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each rule themselves and simply remain in a close relationship with each other? All the scaremongering by the British government is just as bad as the SNP phony sabre rattling. This brings me on to British membership of the EU, why do we need to be part of a centralised European authoritarian state in order to be close friends and trading partners with the rest of Europe. If they won't trade with people not in their special club, then that is their loss, and not ours, as we have trading partners, friends, and allies outside of the EU.

Of course, the EU is a centralised economic pseudo-state that also seeks to impose various authoritarian dictates in regards to social policy. The EU and its costly and needless bureaucracy, regulations, etc. add on to the pre-existing regulations and so on, compounding our problems. The goal of the EU is a centralised, all-encompassing European super-state, disturbingly reminiscent of fascism and communism, regardless of whether or not people want it (and it is abundantly clear that the British public want out of the EU.) Whilst a British exit is mocked, a future possibility that the smug parasites in Brussels might not be so glib about is the possibility of a German exit from the EU and a return to the hard Deutschemark.

You see, the Eurocrats need to mock secession, since if but one nation leaves their failed experiment, it opens the floodgates, and they want to preserve their precious 'union' purely because they want to rule over other people's lives. The Argentine government in its lust for land that was never theirs are similar. You see, they want to rule over the Falkland Islands, probably for its natural resources, purely because it is nearer to them than it is to Britain. However, the island had no native population and was first settled by the British. Now, every time the Falkland islanders are given a vote, they vote to remain British.

This reinforces the idea that the government does not serve its people, and is not voluntarily. When people want to opt out, they are violently oppressed. If they stay in the system, then they are violently oppressed. Essentially, the government seeks to forces itself on its citizens. That there are citizens brainwashed and deluded enough to keep supporting the government is besides the point. Governments round the world oppose attempts at secession because they cannot tolerate any opposition. Allowing people the freedom to opt out of their hegemony would give people 'ideas,' so to speak. Simply put, they are the enemies of freedom.

Every free human is an agent with free will, and so, as such, have the right to liberty, free choice, and all that good stuff. Yet, by refusing to allow free humans to choose whether or not they want to live as part of a government or not is no less a denial of freedom than slavery. The only difference is that the government seeks to control its citizens via pleasure and meaningless distractions rather than pain and hardship. Not that this fact deters the laughing, smiling apologists of such a system of institutionalised corruption and violence.

As long as we are willing to tolerate this, we can never know freedom, and freedom is the only path to economic prosperity. Right now, the political elite have a chokehold on its populace. We have centralised banking, government subsidies, government regulations, government interference and intervention in our economic and political lives. All of these things are keeping us poor and oppressed, whilst the parasitic class of political elites ruling over us laugh and grow fat.

Not that I actually oppose all government. A government that operated on voluntaristic principles would not be objectionable. The only question would be: would such a thing be better than simply living without a government and freely associating and interacting with those who wish to do the same. If such a government is possible, and would be better than statelessness, then I would be for it. This is why I prefer the term voluntarism rather than anarchism. I merely stand for freedom, the principle of non-aggression, and the principle of voluntary human interaction.

At the very least, the current authoritarian fascist/socialist governments around the world need to be repudiated, opposed, and overturned. With government controlled central bank, we have a government monopoly over currency. The current policy of fiat currency quantitative easing and artificially low interest rates have the effects of causing rapid artificial inflation, and fuelling mass malinvestment. Both of these things distort the market, and subvert the market processes. Inflation leads to rapidly rising prices and the devaluation of currency.

We also have burdensome systems of government bureaucracy and red tape in the form of high taxation, over regulation, and subsidisation. By subsidising certain businesses, the government is effectively picking winners and losers. Moreover, these companies will then lobby the government, who will pass regulations favourable to those companies, but not others. This again distorts the market and subverts market processes. The companies in question cannot survive without this neo-fascist style corporatism. We even have out and out socialism in certain places and cases.

Our governments also piss our tax money away on other stupid things, such as funding foreign wars in the form of "foreign aid" and military spending. All of these things are what have led to the downfall of literally every empire in recorded history. Military imperialism, deficit spending, high taxes, devaluation of currency, etc. A simple cursory glance of history confirms that these policies only ever lead to economic ruin, yet the political elite insist it is the only way to prosperity. In a way they are right, it is their prosperity that depends on such a system. Without out they'd just be ordinary schmoes like the rest of us.

Professional "economists" (i.e. people paid to guess wrong about the economy) will swear blind that this economic system works, yet they have not one single shred of corroborating evidence. You see, they only study numbers; a discipline known as econometrics, which treats national economics and all the transactions within as abstractions. What they fail to take into consideration is that no amount of model building and estimations built on numerical data could ever account for the actions of agents with free will such as ourselves. If these 'professionals' were only to read a history book, then they would know this to be true. Most are simply too ignorant, or too stupid. However, there are a few who probably do know, but choose to lie about it anyway.

In essence, this system and everybody who supports it are completely insane. From the political elite who profit from this, to the stupid moron on the street who thinks voting actually makes a difference in a system of total corruption and violence. I know some will take umbrage at what I have to say, but that is most likely because I refuse to disguise my disgust at the passive role the voting public plays in upholding the current status quo. And even though everybody with more than half a brain knows what I am saying is true, there are those who will fight to preserve the system.

Monday, 9 February 2015

Recently a little spat on the Internet arose between a group of gamer activists, operating under the adopted name of 'gamergate', protesting against what they perceive as corruption and unethical behaviour in video game journalism, and a group of radical feminists and social justice warriors who claim that video games, the gaming industry, and gamergate are all misogynistic. When did this all begin? Awhile back, a fellow named Eron Gjoni made a blog post where he said that his ex-girlfriend, game developer Zoe Quinn, engaged in numerous affairs with various men, including Kotaku writer Nathan Grayon, in exchange for positive reviews for her game, Depression Quest.

As for the truth of these allegations, I cannot say, but it did rile up gamers invested in integrity of video game journalism. Now, I, as a gamer, don't give a shit about video gaming journalism. I base my opinions of video games by actually playing those games instead of reading what other people think about it. Yet, I can see how this could potentially be a big deal to those who value video game journalism. This was exacerbated when certain videos critical of Quinn's game were taken down on YouTube, and it was subsequently discovered that various gaming journalists funded Quinn through her patreon account.

This is what started the gamergate movement. A bunch of gamers upset at the prospect that video game journalists are possibly engaging in shady ball-licking activity. What, then, does this have to do with misogyny? Well, Quinn is a woman, and received hate mail, death threats, rape threats, and had her personal information, including her address, published. However, whilst such behaviour is deplorable, individuals engaging in it aren't necessarily misogynistic just because Quinn is a woman.

Of course, Quinn was not the only one targeted. Game developer Brianna Wu, a vocal critic of the gamergate movement from the onset, and Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist who has published numerous videos criticising video games and the gaming industry as misogynistic, also came under scrutiny from gamergate, and began to receive similar threats also. The additional argument being made that Sarkeesian is being attacked because of her apparent expose of the misogyny in video games.

What is an issue is how it is only women who are being targeted for hate mail, death threats, etc. For a long time, enemies of gamergate have claimed that these threats, etc. have all come from gamergate. This is simply false. It has been well-known for a long time now that the threats, and online attacks are being made by third-party trolls who despise both the gamergaters and their enemies alike. Numerous gamergaters have been involved in ensuing that such attacks are reported to the relevant authorities. Moreover, whilst the harassment has been solely targeted against women, a telling clue can be found in the fact that actual gamergaters have been vocal critics of men and women.

Indeed, after the allegations were made against Quinn, it was not just Quinn herself who came under scrutiny, but the men she was allegedly having affairs with. When Brianna Wu was accused of shadiness, it was not just Wu who came under scrutiny, but the journalists who were allegedly acting in consort with her. The social justice warriors and 'feminists' attacking gamergaters include men, who are also being criticised by gamergaters.

As for the claims of sexism and misogyny in the video gaming industry, these claims are partially justified by the alleged misogyny in gamergate. Yet, not only is this claim of misogyny in gamergate ill-founded, there are a very many gamergaters who are women. Anita Sarkeesian came under scrutiny because of her video series alleging to demonstrate sexism and misogyny in the video gaming industry, not because she is a woman, or because her claims 'threaten' gaming, but because she is a fraud.

It has been well-documented for quite some time that Sarkeesian lied to her supporters, and has dishonestly cut and paste parts from video games, cherry picked out of context. She pledged to produce a certain number of videos over a certain period of time if she raised enough money on her kickstarter campaign page. Not only was that amount reached, it was exceeded. Despite this, she has still not published the promised number of videos despite having two years to have made them and is now asking for more money.

Regarding her claims of sexism and misogyny in video games, these are entirely unfounded. One main example she uses is the video game Hitman: Absolution. Sarkeesian claimed that players were actively invited and encouraged to murder female sex workers in a mission set in a strip club. The problem is that this is completely false. Players are PUNISHED for murdering civilians, female or otherwise. In the clip Sarkeesian herself provides, you can see the player score GOING DOWN. A similar claim is made regarding the game Watch_Dogs because of a mission set in a strip club, even though the player goal is to shut down an illegal sex working/trafficking ring and to liberate the women from said ring.

Another glaring issue is her pronouncements of the game Bayonetta being sexist. She claimed that the titular character was 'obviously' designed for the satisfaction of straight male gamers. The main character was designed by a woman. If you want actual examples of sexism in video games, then one would have thought Sarkeesian would have taken umbrage with the game Warface, where female characters were given very skimpy outfits in comparison to their male counterparts, despite being a military style first person shooter.

Of course, Sarkeesian is not interested in facts. She is interested in pushing an agenda. Moments after a school shooting in Maryville, Sarkeesian proceeded to blame school shootings on the 'patriarchy' and white males, and took the opportunity to make a bash at gaming. Wu has made similarly stupid claims herself. She ridiculed gamergaters for lusting after a world where female game developers were 3% of developers instead of 8%. In reality, 52% of gamers today are actually female and a lot of women are in the gaming industry today.

The fact of the matter is, Sarkeesian is a demonstrable fraud, the claims of misogyny are only being made because those being criticised happen to be women, and all of the hate mail, death threats, etc. have come from third party trolls. Gamergate is simply not misogynistic, and I say this as someone who does not care about video gaming journalism in the slightest. These SJWs and radical feminists are simply trying to shoehorn their toxic ideology in wherever they can, facts and logic be damned. Although, as stupid as the SJWs and feminists are, and even if the allegations made against Quinn and Wu are true, anybody who sends death threats, rape threats, etc. are pieces of shit.

Oh, and if anyone wants to send me hate mail, then I only accept entries made in hand-written triplicate. I have standards, I'm afraid.

Friday, 6 February 2015

Introduction
When it comes to the project of history there is something that historians must be careful to pay heed to above anything else: they must be wary of their own biases and pre-suppositions. One’s worldview influences one’s work in history as surely as it influences everything else in one’s experience. This does not invalidate the efforts of fallible humans in engaging in such an enterprise, of course. Contrary to the post-modernists, recognition of such pitfalls merely highlights the need for caution in making judgments and pronouncements, and the need for critical self-reflection. For my Bachelor’s dissertation, I wrote on the subject of the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity. In that dissertation, I argued for a particular historical hypothesis of Christianity’s origin based on socio-cultural data and rigorous criteria for assessing historical hypotheses. In this dissertation, however, I shall instead be looking at the views and hypotheses of other historians.

It is my aim to assess such hypotheses in three ways: first, I shall be looking at how 1st century socio-cultural data is correctly integrated, secondly, I shall be looking at to what extent 21st century socio-cultural suppositions affected their forming, and lastly, I shall be assessing their value as historical hypotheses against specific historical criteria. The reason for my choice in subject matter is for a number of reasons: I am very interested in early Christianity and the historical Jesus. I am particularly interested in how socio-cultural data impacts our understanding of various historical periods. However, it seems to me as if the effects of modern socio-cultural views on how historians engage in history and historical reasoning is something that has not received substantial or sufficient treatment. Obviously, from a purely logical and philosophical point of view, an argument cannot be undermined based on any attribute of the arguer, or the origin of the argument. In looking at the influences of modern society and culture on modern historians, we will not so much be ascertaining the truth-value of their hypotheses, but assessing their historical reasoning. However, it is undeniable that one’s socio-cultural background impacts one’s historical reasoning.

In assessing how the socio-cultural backgrounds of the historians in question impacts their historical reasoning it is my aim to ascertain to what extent their historical hypotheses depend on a priori assumptions grounded in their socio-cultural backgrounds. Moreover, I shall also be assessing how well their historical reasoning stands on its own without such assumptions. Historian C. Behan McCullagh lists the following criteria for assessing historical hypotheses in his work Justifying Historical Descriptions.[1]
1. The hypothesis must explain a greater variety of data than rival hypotheses. (Explanatory scope.)
2. The data must be more probable under the hypothesis than rival hypotheses. (Explanatory power.)
3. The hypothesis must be implied by a greater variety of established truths than rival hypotheses, and to a greater degree than rival hypotheses. (Plausibility.)
4. The hypothesis must include fewer new suppositions not already implied by the data than rival hypotheses. (Non-ad hoc.)
5. The hypothesis must include fewer observation statements believed to be false than rival hypotheses. (Accord with existing beliefs.)
As we can see, these criteria refer to things that can be affected by one’s socio-cultural suppositions, for example: plausibility and accord with existing beliefs.

When forming a historical hypothesis, or when assessing a historical hypothesis, clear and valid historical reasoning is essential. As such, making a priori assumptions based purely off of one’s socio-cultural suppositions is clearly an invalid historical reasoning. Of course, this does not demonstrate that the historical hypothesis is necessarily false, only that it is badly argued. In this dissertation, we shall be looking at three separate viewpoints regarding the historical Jesus. First, we shall be looking at so-called ‘Christ-Myth’ hypothesis. Whilst this is a fringe view dismissed by virtually every historian, there are nonetheless defenders of this view even in the realms of academia. The two authors we shall be principally be looking at from this view are Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier. They maintain and defend the radical claims that there was no historical Jesus, and that he was merely a mythological figure invented by Paul of Tarsus, et al. based on a variety of pagan deities.

Secondly, we shall be looking at the secular view: with the views of Bart D. Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan being chief among these. The defining element in common is the claim that the historical Jesus was merely a man. The Christian claims of the historical Jesus’ divinity are typically regarded as legendary additions accrued over the ages. They only differ slightly: Ehrman regards the historical Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, whereas Crossan regards the historical Jesus as a cynic sage. Unlike the aforementioned ‘Christ Myth’ hypothesis, these views are much more mainstream. Lastly, we shall analyse the approaches of Christian scholars such as William Lane Craig, and Mike Licona. The Christian viewpoint is that the historical Jesus was the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. Whilst this view is highly contentious amongst secular scholars, it is nevertheless a position that continues to receive widespread support.

Given that this dissertation covers the subject of how one’s historical reasoning can be influenced by one’s socio-cultural suppositions, it would be prudent to highlight my own. I am a Christian, by which I mean that I believe in the existence of a maximally great being, and that the historical Jesus was the incarnation of the second person of the trinity. Philosophically, I do not subscribe to either physicalism, the belief that everything that exists is comprised of physical matter, or naturalism, the belief that everything that exists can be explained in terms of natural causes. Whilst I am more than willing to suspend these beliefs and adopt a position of neutrality, i.e. assuming that neither theism nor atheism is true, etc., because I actually do believe in Christian Theism, I may nevertheless be more favourable towards Christian views than non-Christian views.

Given my existing beliefs, I will certainly strive to be as objective as humanly possible. Of course, the corollary to this is that a person who does not believe in Christian Theism, or any version of theism at all, would be more likely to be disfavourable to Christian views, even despite efforts at remaining neutral. Philosophers refer to our individual structures of beliefs as ‘noetic structures,’ and one’s stance on the existence of God can be a tremendously major part of one’s noetic structure. Unfortunately, space does not permit me to devote too much to the issue of philosophy of history, but I shall obviously touch upon issues such as methodology, etc. in the discussion ahead.

Chapter One: Jesus as Myth
As aforementioned, this is a fringe view that has very few defenders who are actually academics at all, let alone academics in relevant fields. However, this has become an increasingly popular view amongst the so-called ‘new atheist’ movement, as well as amongst online sceptic groups and communities. Whilst authors such as Acharya S and Earl Doherty are lay authors with little to no formal historical training at all,[2] other authors, such as Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price, are academics that actually hold some relevant expertise.[3] Even so, the overwhelming majority of their work on the subject has been published, not through any serious academic publishers, but through a publisher by the name of Prometheus Books, which is dedicated to publishing anti-religious material.[4]

Put simply, the Christ Myth hypothesis is the position that there is no historical Jesus at all, let alone the Christian version of Jesus. As can be expected, this is a view that has not had very many defenders, even at its most popular. The only difference between now and one hundred years ago is that a hundred years ago it was possible to defend the Christ Myth hypothesis and still be considered a mainstream scholar. That and there are substantially fewer defenders of the Christ Myth hypothesis today. Modern Christ mysticism can be traced back to 19th century scholars such as D. F. Strauss and Bruno Bauer, as well as taking influence from 20th century scholar Rudolph Bultmann.[5] These views, in turn, being distant derivatives of earlier, 18th century Deistic polemics against religion.[6]

This obviously does nothing to invalidate their arguments, of course. I am simply noting the strongly polemical anti-religious background of the Christ-Myth hypothesis. Indeed, such leanings are evident in the writings of the Christ Mythers themselves, not just in works promoting the Christ Myth hypothesis, but also in their other works too.[7] This obviously presents us with a clear and obvious bias against any possible interpretation of the data that favours Christianity, and so when assessing the arguments and historical reasoning of the Christ Myth hypothesis, we must take special care to look out for anything that presupposes a non-theistic worldview.

As aforementioned, the purpose of this dissertation is to look out for any circular reasoning inherent in the arguments of various scholars, namely those that presuppose the very thing they are trying to establish. As such, approaching the subject of the historical Jesus and early Christianity already convinced that it is false can be as problematic as approaching the subject already convinced that Christianity is true. This is especially true when we are considering viewpoints that not only consider rival views false, but ‘evil,’ etc. The question is whether or not those who hold to such views can suspend them and approach the subject as objectively as possible, and to what extent they allow their suppositions to influence their historical reasoning and hypotheses.

Aside from the non-existence of any historical Jesus, and the charge that Christianity plagiarised from pagan religions, other claims and arguments are made that, whilst not dependent on the non-existence of Jesus, are typically used and employed by Christ Myth hypothesis defenders in their overall model of Christianity’s development and origin. Typically, the New Testament documents are dismissed outright as anonymous documents of no historical value, and weren’t intended to be historical documents. It is also usually claimed that Christian editors forged all non-Christian references to Jesus, and went on an anti-heretic pro-Orthodox campaign of persecution, destroying all documents that conflicted with their version of the Gospels and their version of Jesus.

It might be important to note what both Price and Carrier have to say about their own biases. Consider the following written by Carrier:
“I am a marginally renowned atheist, known across America… as an avid defender of a naturalist worldview and a dedicated opponent of the abuse of history in the service of supernaturalist creeds… I have always assumed without worry that Jesus was just some guy, another merely human founder of an entirely natural religion… So, I have no vested interest in proving Jesus didn’t exist...”[8]
Obviously, a human Jesus is no challenge at all either to atheism or naturalism. However, one way to undercut Christianity is to simply deny the historicity of Jesus. Why bother debating the historical value of the New Testament documents, their textual accuracy, or whether or not the resurrection occurred when you can argue Jesus himself never existed? This is hardly speculative either; many within the so-called ‘new atheist’ movement have adopted this strategy and promoted the Christ Myth as a means of attacking Christianity.[9]

Carrier’s attitude towards theism and religion are hardly neutral either. Consider the following:
“Believers, by contrast, and their apologists in the scholarly community, cannot say the same. For them, if Jesus didn’t exist, then their entire worldview topples. The things they believe in (and need to believe in) more than anything else in the entire world will then be dire threat. It would be hard to expect them ever to overcome this bias, which makes bias a greater problem for them than for me. They need Jesus to be real; but I don’t need Jesus to be a myth.”[10]
This seems little more than Carrier attempting to poison the well by smearing the reputation of his ideological opponents. What makes Christians inherently less likely to overcome bias? What makes Christian bias more problematic than anti-Christian, anti-theistic, and anti-religious biases? This comment, far from impugning the reputation of believers, simply reveals Carrier’s own biases.

Someone who is hostile to religion is more likely to adopt radical views than someone who simply believes religion to be false. Carrier himself continues on to say:
“That’s how my involvement in this matter began, resulting in my mostly (but not solely) positive review of Earl Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle. My continued work on the question has now culminated in over forty philanthropists (some of them Christians) donating a collective total of $20,000 for Atheists United, a major American educational charity, to support my research and writing a series of books.”[11]
How then can Carrier say he has no vested interested on the question? The overwhelming majority of his works are published through Prometheus Books, who publish exclusively anti-theistic works, and his research is being funded through Atheists United. His comments regarding the abuse of history in favour of supernaturalist creeds also betray a strongly anti-theistic bias. Why not simply all abuses of history?

Price’s statements are more interesting:
“Some will automatically assume I am doing apologetics on behalf of “village atheism,” as some do. For what it may be worth, let me note I began the study of the historical Jesus question as an enthusiastic, would-be apologist.”[12] Price continues: “I have never come to disdain Christianity. Indeed, I was for half a dozen years pastor of a Baptist Church and am now a happy Episcopalian. I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of the faith. For me the Christ of faith has all the more importance since I think it most probable that there was never any other.”[13]
The problem here is that Price coming from a Christian background does not negate bias. Indeed, it seems that Price is coming to this with a very skewed definition of the term ‘faith,’ most likely a hangover from his Christian days.

Neither Carrier’s nor Price’s statements seem to match their actual views and attitudes. Whilst Carrier is forthright about his atheism, naturalism, and activism in favour of both of these worldviews, he nevertheless tries to mitigate his biases by trying to argue that his ideological opponents are somehow inherently more biased than he is by default.[13] He also claims to have no vested interest in the existence of Jesus despite publishing numerous articles and books arguing that Jesus never existed via a specifically anti-theist publishing company, and being funded through an organisation geared towards advancing atheism. Price, on the other hand, tries to mitigate his own bias by noting his former beliefs and worldview. Such a change in beliefs and worldviews is not necessarily an indication of lack of bias. In reality, these are men with a strong vested interest in promoting a certain ideology.

Let us then assess the arguments of these two scholars. Aside from assessing the historical reasoning employed, we will also be looking at the extent to which their arguments are based on suppositions resulting from their worldview and biases. Good arguments will be able to stand independent of the worldview, biases, and assumptions of its author, whereas bad arguments will rely heavily on certain assumptions that are a part of their worldview that are not necessarily shared by those who hold to different worldviews. These types of assumptions can range from dismissing the possibility of the resurrection because you hold to naturalism, to dismissing the value of the Gospels because you believe ancient people were stupider. As we can see from the historical criteria laid out by McCullagh, we must make as few new suppositions about the past not already evidenced by the data as humanly possible.

Central to Price’s rejection of the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus is his reliance on the assumptions of form criticism, particular the notion of ideal types:
“The third commandment is to remember what an ideal type means. Conveniently forgetting it, many have ignored the importance of the mystery religions, the theios aner (divine man), the dying-and-rising gods, and, most recently, Gnosticism, for the historical Jesus question. An ideal type is a textbook definition made up of the regularly recurring features common to the phenomenon in question.”[14]
Price’s argument is that accounts of Jesus fit certain mythological stereotypes: the dying-and-rising god archetype, and the mythic hero/divine man-god archetype. Thus, according to Price, because the accounts of Jesus match these mythical archetypes, we are warranted in believing that the Jesus of Christianity was a mythological figure and not a historical one.

There are numerous problems with this approach. The first and most obvious flaw in his reasoning is the assumption that parallels between Christianity and other religions necessarily makes Christianity mythical. The biggest problem with this assumption is the existence of striking parallels between actual historical figures and events with other figures and events as well as to fictional accounts.
“Many readers will be familiar with an account of a large passenger ship built approximately one hundred years ago that had a name beginning with “Tita___.” Despite the fact that it was said to be “unsinkable,” on a cold April night the new ship hit an iceberg in the Atlantic Ocean. It sank and more than half of its passengers perished due to an insufficient number of lifeboats. Of course, the ship that comes to mind is the Titanic. However, all of these details are likewise used to describe the sinking of the Titan in the novel Futility, written in 1898–fourteen years prior to the sinking of the Titanic.”[15]
This is not the only example of a work of fiction predating an event to which it bears an extraordinary degree of resemblance. In 1884 a yacht called the Mignonette left England for Australia. However, the journey met disaster when it sunk during a storm. The crew initially survived by eating a turtle, and ultimately resorted to cannibalism by eating 17-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker.

These events are eerily similar to an account in the novel The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym by Edgar Allan Poe, written 50 years prior to the sinking of the Mignonette. In the novel, the survivors ate a tortoise before resorting to cannibalism by eating their 17-year-old cabin boy, whose name was also Richard Parker.[16] Last but not least, there are considerable parallels between American presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.[17] Are we to believe that there is a presidential archetype and that Lincoln and Kennedy are myths, or that the sinking of the Titanic and the cannibalisation of Richard Parker form some kind of nautical disaster archetype? The more rational explanation is that these parallels are coincidences that bear no causal relationship to one another.

According to Price, Christianity borrowed heavily from eastern mystery religions that predated the supposed lifetime of Christ:
“The Jesus story as attested in the Epistles shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions based on the myths of dying-and-rising gods… Originally celebrating the seasonal cycle and the death and return of vegetation, these myths were reinterpreted later by peoples of the ancient nationalities relocated around the Roman Empire and in urban settings… Strong evidence from ancient stelae and tablets make clear that Baal and Osiris were believed to be dying-and-rising gods long before the Christian era. There is also pre-Christian evidence for the resurrection of Attis, Adonis and Dumuzi/Tammuz. All these survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods, when they were available to influence Christianity.”[18]
Price also argues that the Church Fathers and ancient apologists knew this and tried to get by this by arguing that the evidence was planted by Satan to fool people.[19] The problem is that these claims of parallels between Jesus and ancient pagan deities are simply an overblown and severe misrepresentation of the truth.

Let us start with the claim that early Christians knew of these supposed parallels and tried to explain them away by claiming that Satan was responsible for them. This claim is derived from quotations of 2nd century Christian apologist Justin Martyr. The problem is that Justin Martyr says no such thing. This is what Justin has to say:
“The prophet Moses, then, was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape. The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven.”[20]
“For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?”[21]
“And these things [the messianic prophecies] were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain.”[22]

When we take all of Justin’s statements into account, it becomes clear that Justin is not trying to dismiss parallels as being down to some kind of diabolical mimicry at all. Rather, he is offering an explanation to the origins of paganism. He is arguing that the devil created these religions based on the Old Testament prophecies, but got them wrong. However, are the statements of a 2nd century Christian enough to demonstrate that Jesus was a mythological figure based on paganism? The problem is that there are no striking similarities between Christianity and pagan religions at all. Any and all similarities that do exist are superficial at best. Price’s appeals to the pagan figures he names are misleading for a number of reasons. In the case of Baal “…the ritual standing between nature and myth was not a complex procedure celebrating the death and resurrection of the god but royal funerary ritual.”[23]

Osiris is similar in that he too does not return from the dead. Rather, Osiris functioned as a funerary deity who ruled over the land of the dead.[24] As noted by Jonathan Smith:
“…he [Osiris] did not return to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld, where he became the powerful lord of the dead. In no sense can Osiris be said to have 'risen' in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern (as described by Frazer et.al.); most certainly it was never considered as an annual event."[24]
Elements of the Attis cult involving resurrection were not added until significantly after the origin of Christianity. Moreover, scholars believe that such elements were the result of cultists copying Christianity rather than the other way round.[25]

Simply put:
“The Frazerian construct of a general ‘Oriental’ vegetation god who periodically dies and rises from the dead has been discredited by more recent scholarship. There is no evidence for a resurrection of Attis; even Osiris remains with the dead; and if Persephone returns to the world every year, a joyous event for gods and men, the initiates do not follow her. There is a dimension of death in all of the mystery initiations, but the concept of rebirth or resurrection of either gods or mystai is anything but explicit.”[26]
Thus, not only are claims of parallels a complete red herring to begin with, there simply is no evidence for the kind of similarities Price claims.

This is a major death blow for the argument that Jesus was a mythological figure based on pagan myths and a decisive refutation of one of the central claims of the Christ Myth hypothesis. With such a central aspect of the Christ Myth hypothesis decisively refuted it becomes difficult to see how it can stand on its remaining premises. The second main argument is the apparent lack of secular sources that mention Jesus. The problem with this should be apparent to anybody who has spent any amount of time studying the subject, a problem which even Price himself admits (albeit in a roundabout fashion):
“The silence-of-the-sources argument at most implies a Bultmannian version of a historical Jesus whose relatively modest activity as an exorcist and faith healer would not have attracted much attention, any more than secular media cover Peter Popov today.”[27]
So, one of the few proponents of the Christ Myth hypothesis in academia today admits that a lack of secular sources mentioning Jesus is no argument against a historical Jesus at all.

The silence argument is, of course, far weaker than even Price is willing to admit. For one thing, we DO have secular sources that mention Jesus. Aside from the two passages in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, one of which Price dismisses as a Christian forgery at the hands of Eusebius without argument, we have a variety of other references of varying usefulness, including a reference in Tacitus’ Annals.[28] However, these references are largely irrelevant as they do not tell us much about the historical Jesus. Indeed, most scholars on the subject agree that the primary sources we have on the life of Jesus are the New Testament documents, in particular the Gospels. Bart Ehrman of all people says the following: “…the Gospels, their sources, and the oral traditions that lie behind them combine to make a convincing case that Jesus really existed.”[29] Even if the historical Jesus was as the Gospels portrayed him, there simply is no reason to expect anything other than the brief, secular references that we already have.[30]

The last argument put forward in defence of the hypothesis that there was no historical Jesus is the argument that the Epistles lack significant details on the life of Jesus, do not attribute various sayings of Jesus to Jesus, and fail to quote Jesus where it would be expected.[31] According to Price: “It makes eminent sense to suggest, in the Epistles, that we see early Christian sayings just before their attribution to Jesus.”[32] Once again, these are claims that are highly problematic. The whole notion of individual sayings being invented wholesale by various communities is an assumption of form criticism, as is the notion that the sayings in the Epistles and Gospels represent distorted or evolved versions of certain pure forms. As Richard Bauckham notes: “It is a curious fact that nearly all the contentions of the early form critics have by now been convincingly refuted, but the general picture of the process of oral transmission that the form critics pioneered still governs the way most New Testament scholars think.”[33]

Price’s contentions rest on an entirely defunct way at looking at ancient oral traditions. Bauckham notes several problems with form criticism, any one on its own being enough to bring down the entirety of form criticism.[34] A critical study of the Gospels reveals a variety of mnemonic techniques that provide evidence as to how they were transmitted orally prior to their writing down. These memorisation techniques were similar to those employed by Rabbis and their students and reveal a relatively stable oral transmission.[35] Moreover, there is no evidence at all that suggests that Christian communities believed they had the authority to alter sayings, etc. freely. Rather, the oral transmission was most likely held in check by the authority of the disciples.[36] As for Price’s complaint regarding the Epistles’ apparent lack of life details, quotations, and attributions of sayings, these can be answered readily.

The assumptions that, had Jesus existed, then the Epistles would have surely: a) contained lots of details about Jesus’ life, b) quoted Jesus profusely, and c) would have explicitly attributed each quotation of Jesus to Jesus are simply faulty. The reason for this lies in two facts: 1) the genre of the Epistles vs. the genre of the Gospels, and 2) the culture in which both were composed. The Gospels were ancient biographies, or bioi, and, as such, we can expect lots of details on Jesus’ life.[36] The Pauline Epistles, on the other hand, were letters from the apostle Paul to Christian communities and churches he had helped set up. Secondly, the early Christians lived in what anthropologists call ‘high context culture.’ What this means is simply that when individuals in such a society communicated with one other, they presumed “a broadly shared, generally well-understood knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing.”[37]

Given the genre of the Epistles as being personal letters, the high context nature of 1st century Near Eastern culture, and the fact these letters were being written to Christians already familiar with the sayings and deeds of Jesus, why on earth would they have contained lots of life details, quotations, and attributions? As it stands, the Epistles DO quote Jesus, and do provide some details of Jesus’ life. They simply do not name him as being quoted from because those being written to would have known who had said it, due to the high-context nature of their society, and the fact those being written to were amply familiar with said quotations. The Epistles providing little details of Jesus’ life do so precisely the same reason why not every quotation of Jesus is attributed to him. To 1st century people to do so would have been redundant.

Aside from the argument that Jesus never even existed, it is not uncommon for proponents of the Christ Myth hypothesis to promote similar ideas. Richard Carrier, a proponent of the Christ-Myth hypothesis, argues that early Christians believed in a “spiritual resurrection” and that the empty tomb was a later interpolation by later Christians.[38] Whereas Price tries to make the argument that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 was a post-Pauline interpolation.[39] These claims are similarly problematic and ignore the socio-cultural reality of the 1st century Near East. Let us start with the argument that belief in a physical resurrection evolved from an earlier belief in a “spiritual resurrection.” The first point to make is that such a term is a complete oxymoron. In Judaism, resurrection was a specific mode of vindication that was believed to occur at the end of time for all the righteous dead.

Resurrection was a physical return to life followed by a transformation into a new imperishable physical form, whereas belief in existence as a disembodied spirit after death was what certain pagans believed (although most apparently believed death was permanent.)[40] The second point to make is that the idea of physical resurrection would have been abhorrent to pagans, whereas the idea of existing as a disembodied spirit after death would have been more acceptable.[41] As such, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to suggest Christians discarded an earlier belief that was more acceptable in favour of a belief that was less acceptable. What then of Price’s argument that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 was an interpolation? There simply is no evidence at all for this claim. Rather, all the evidence shows that the creedal formula contained in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 predated Paul’s Epistle.

As Habermas explains:
“In the case of 1 Cor 15:3ff., critical scholars agree that Paul’s reception of at least the content of this proclamation, and probably the creed itself, go back to the mid-AD 30s, when he spent two weeks with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. But these two apostles had the material before Paul did, and the events behind the reports are earlier still. This is probably the chief argument that persuades the majority of scholars today that the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection originated in the earliest church. Virtually all critical scholars think this message began with the real experiences of Jesus’ earliest disciples, who thought that they had seen appearances of their risen Lord. It did not arise at some later date. Nor was it borrowed or invented.”[42]
In addition to demolishing Price’s claims, this also serves as further refutation of Carrier’s argument that resurrection was a later belief that superseded an earlier belief in “spiritual resurrection.”

Chapter Two: Jesus as Human
The overwhelming majority of scholars today at least recognise that a historical figure named Jesus lived roughly 2,000 years ago in 1st century AD Palestine. Where they tend to differ is in just who precisely the historical Jesus was and the degree to which he resembles the Christian portrayals of him. Scholars Bart D. Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan represent the two leading non-Christian views on Jesus. Ehrman is a former fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic who regards Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, whereas Crossan, despite professing to be a Christian, nevertheless regards Jesus as a cynic sage rather than the incarnation of the second person of the divine trinity. The main works we shall be analysing and referencing will be John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Harper Collins, (1994), and Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.

It can be fair to say that these scholars represent the ‘middle ground’ so to speak between the orthodox Christians on one side and the hardcore anti-theists on the other. Indeed, as Bart Ehrman has himself noted:
“…I can imagine readers who think me anti-Christian taking umbrage at my refusal to toe their line. And Christian readers may well be pleased that even someone like me agrees with them on key points (although they certainly won’t like other things I have to say in the book).”[43]
This might give some readers the impression that Ehrman is therefore much more impartial, especially when they find out he used to be a fundamentalist Christian.[44] Of course, simply taking the middle ground is no guarantee of impartiality, just as changing views does not either.

Crossan on the other hand is a former Roman Catholic Priest who left the monastic order “…to avoid a conflict of interest between priestly loyalty and scholarly honesty.”[45] However, despite seemingly claiming to hold faith in God, Jesus, and the resurrection, Crossan nevertheless holds to several unorthodox beliefs, most notably: Crossan claims that, after Jesus’ burial, his body was thrown into a ditch where it was likely eaten by wild animals.[46] It can safely be said that Crossan is no Christian in the orthodox sense, but it seems as if, at least as far as religious biases go, Crossan has no particular dog in this fight. Of course, despite this, a careful gleaning of his work betrays a few key assumptions that colour his conclusions. I shall attempt to show this in my analysis of his arguments.
,br>
We shall first look at the arguments of Bart D. Ehrman. One point he repeatedly stresses throughout his work is the apparent anonymity of the Gospels:
“…in the final analysis, we should return to the point from which we began: even though we might desperately want to know the identities of the authors of the earliest Gospels, we simply don’t have sufficient evidence.”[47]
“The Gospel writers – anonymous Greek-speaking Christians living thirty-five to sixty-five years after the traditional date of Jesus’ death – were simply writing down episodes that they had heard from the life of Jesus.”[48]
Now, those who have studied the Gospels and New Testament history will at once agree that the original authors of the Gospels did not write their names on their work themselves, and that the current attributions to Matthew, Mark, et al. derive from later Christian tradition. Does this mean, however, that we cannot know who wrote them with any degree of certainty?

Ehrman seems to think it strange that nobody at all mentions the names of the authors of the Gospels prior to 2nd century despite quoting from them. Of course, given that they lived in a high context society, such an omission is hardly conclusive of anything at all, other than that those quoting the Gospels took for granted that others would know the author already. Moreover:
“Anonymous works were relatively rare and must have been given a title in libraries. They were often given the name of pseudepigraphical author… Works without titles easily got double or multiple titles when names were given to them in different libraries.”[49]
To his credit, however, Ehrman does mention Papias and his references to two of the Gospels in the 2nd century. Ehrman argues:
“The tradition about Matthew is even less fruitful, since the two things that Papias tells us are that (a) Matthew’s book only comprised “sayings” of Jesus–whereas our Matthew contains a lot more than that–and (b) it was written in Hebrew. On this latter point, though, New Testament specialists are unified: the Gospel of Matthew that we have was originally written in Greek. Papias does not appear, therefore, to be referring to this book.”[50]
This treatment of Papias, however, does not deal with the main arguments concerning the importance of Papias in discerning the identity of the Gospels’ authors.

The fullest treatment of Papias to date can be found in Richard Bauckham’s magnum opus Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.[51] Ehrman claims that Papias claimed that Matthew was a collection of sayings but the Gospel of Matthew contains more than just sayings. Bauckham, however, shows why such an argument does not work:
“Since Q consists almost entirely of sayings of Jesus, this identification has usually entailed thinking that by the logia of the Lord Papias means sayings of Jesus. However, we have seen that In his discussion of Mark Papias uses the term for short accounts of both what Jesus said and what Jesus did.”[52]
Given Papias’ use of the term logia, to argue that he was merely claiming Matthew as a sayings Gospel is erroneous.

Ehrman’s second argument is similarly flawed. As all New Testament scholars know, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, and not in either Hebrew or Aramaic as Papias claims. However, this does not mean Papias’ testimony regarding Matthean authorship of Matthew can simply be dismissed as referring to another book. Indeed, it can be argued that Papias is referring either to a Hebrew or Aramaic original penned by Matthew, or a ‘proto-Gospel’ Matthew penned before the writing of the Greek version. This is attested to by other early Christian authors Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, yet such a hypothesis is typically dismissed out of hand for little to no reason at all. Jerome in particular says: “Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain.”[53]
Ehrman does, however, seem to be more favourable towards Papias’ testimony regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Mark.
“I would assume that the tradition about Mark refers to the Mark that we have in the New Testament, even though there is no way to know for sure, since Papias doesn’t quote any of the materials that are found in the book he’s referring to, and so we have nothing to compare it to. It is striking, though, that he emphasises that (a) the author is not an eyewitness, (b) Peter would retell the stories at random, and (c) Mark modified the accounts he heard from Peter so as to provide an “order” for them.”[54]
On the one hand, Ehrman provides no reasons for doubting the veracity of Papias’ attestation, but nevertheless attempts to cast doubt on it in a particularly underhanded way. For example, he seems to think Mark not being himself an eyewitness is somehow a negative attribute, even though his accounts were simply those of the eyewitness Peter committed to writing.

However, Ehrman make the bizarre claim that Mark modified the accounts of Peter to give them an order, yet this is precisely the opposite of what Papias said. Papias noted that the lack of order in Mark’s Gospel was precisely because he did NOT modify the accounts of Peter he heard, listened to, and remembered. The lack of order was borne from the fact Peter told them out of order, as Ehrman himself notes. However, none of these things affects whether or not the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, translator and interpreter of Peter. These claims of Ehrman also do nothing to affect the credibility of the Gospel of Mark either. Of course, Ehrman tries to attack the credibility of the Gospels in other ways:
“Irenaeus, along with many other Christian leaders in the second-century church, was involved in heated debates over correct doctrine… It’s probably no accident that the first time Christians started insisting that the Gospels they preferred were written by apostles and companions of the apostles… was after various “heresies” began to thrive, heresies in which alternative beliefs were propounded and books embracing these beliefs were distributed.[55]
This argument, however, is invalid and disingenuous for multiple reasons.

Firstly, Ehrman here is implying that the non-canonical gospels and the four canonical Gospel are on equal footing. This is simply false, as all the non-canonical gospels were penned in the 2nd century AD and later. Whereas the four canonical Gospels were all penned in the 1st century AD, all within 30-40 years of Jesus’ death. Ehrman himself later admits:
“…we have other Gospels that did not make it into the New Testament. Lots of other Gospels, in fact–over a couple of dozen of them… But most of them are latecomers–the bulk of them date from the third to the eighth centuries, hundreds of years after Jesus himself. And nearly all of them are based on the New Testament Gospels themselves.”[56]
Of course, in mentioning how the non-canonical gospels emerged, Ehrman is implying that, because the 2nd century gospels were forgeries written by people trying to defend certain theological viewpoints, the same applies to the 1st century Gospels. This is simply the fallacy of poisoning the well and guilt by association.

Indeed, despite the fact that Ehrman tries to malign the canonical Gospels as not being concerned with recording accurate history, and anonymous forgeries not written by eyewitnesses, there is a good deal of evidence that undercuts this assertion. Scholar Richard A. Burridge notes that:
“…a wide range of similarities have been discovered between the gospels and Graeco-Roman Bioi; the differences not sufficiently marked or significant to prevent the gospels belonging to the genre of Bioi literature. The increasing tendency among New Testament scholars to refer to the gospels as ‘biographical’ is vindicated; indeed, the time has come to go on from the use of the adjective ‘biographical’, for the gospels are Bioi!”[57]
In other words, if we treat the Gospels as ancient documents, rather than approaching them as if they constituted some form of sui generis, we discover that, contra Ehrman, they are historical documents.

Of course, there are differences between bioi and general historical accounts. One of the chief differences is that “…biography does not aim to give exhaustive historical reporting. It succeeds in its portrayal of character by a careful selection of whatever actions serve best to illustrate it.”[58] As such, it is therefore reasonable to expect differences amongst different biographical accounts of the same person:
“The process of selection, of deciding which details and quotations should be used and which discarded, depends on the biographers interpretation of character and career, his sense of significance, and his intentions and insights. No two biographers, when confronted with the same body of evidence about a person, will reach the same set of conclusions. That is why there is no such thing as a definitive biography.”[59]
This more than accounts for the apparent discrepancies and differences amongst the Gospel accounts. This is most likely true of modern biographies also.

Moreover, Ehrman’s claim that the disciples were not interested in recording history is simply an example of black-or-white thinking. As New Testament scholar Mike Licona explains:
“Each biographer usually had an agenda behind writing. Accordingly they attempted to persuade readers to a certain way of political, philosophical, moral or religious thinking about the subject. Just as with many contemporary historical Jesus scholars, persuasion and factual integrity were not viewed as being mutually exclusive. It was not an either/or but both.”[60[
Indeed, as philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig explains:
“The overriding lesson of two centuries of biblical criticism is that such an assumption [that the historical case for Jesus’ radical self-understanding and resurrection depends upon showing that the Gospels were generally reliable historical documents] is false. Even documents which are generally unreliable may contain valuable historical nuggets, and it will be the historian’s task to mine these documents in order to discover them.”[61]

This also undercuts Ehrman’s claims of Christian bias getting in the way of serious critical research of the historical Jesus and the early Church. Ehrman opines:
“At one end of the spectrum, fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christians often treat the Gospels as literature unlike anything else that has ever been produced because, in their theological opinion, these books were inspired by God. In this view, inspired literature is not amenable to the same kind of historical and critical investigation as other kinds of literature.”[62]
Yet, as we have seen, it is Ehrman who is treating the Gospels woodenly, whereas Christian scholars such as Licona and Craig are more than capable of treating the Gospels as ancient documents, and such a treatment reveals them to belong to the genre of Bioi, or, in other words, ancient biographies.

Of course, aside from attacking the authorship and general character of the Gospels, Ehrman, as a textual critic, attacks the reliability of the textual transmission of the New Testament:
“Is the text of the New Testament reliable? The reality is there is no way to know. If we had the originals, we could tell you. If we had the first copies, we could tell you. We don’t have the copies in many instances for hundreds of years after the originals. There are places where scholars continue to debate what the original text said, and there are places we will probably never know.”[63]
The problem is that this is not accurate. To be sure, we do not have the original copies that the authors of the Gospels themselves wrote, nor do we have the first copies. However, Ehrman uses these facts to cast doubt about the reliability of the New Testament textual transmission. When we compare the textual transmission of the New Testament compared to those of other ancient documents, the New Testament stands head and shoulders over them all, dwarfing the nearest competitor in both quality and quantity of manuscript evidence.

If we cannot trust the words of the New Testament because we do not have the originals, this means that we must bestow that same doubt a hundredfold upon other ancient documents. As of 2006, we had roughly 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts alone, with the earliest dating to the early 2nd century. By comparison, the earliest manuscripts we have for the works of Tacitus and Suetonius date to the 9th century, with a combined number of 23 manuscripts between them.[64] As far as textual variants go, only 1 percent are meaningful, viable differences. Yet, these variants do not affect anything major within the New Testament text at all; nothing is lost or gained depending on which meaning we go with.[65] As Daniel Wallace notes: “Indeed, the very fact that Ehrman and other textual critics can place these textual variants in history and can determine what the original text was that they corrupted presupposes that the authentic wording has hardly been lost.”[66]

The next leg of Ehrman’s argument is to provide clear evidence of Jesus’ inherent apocalypticism:
“Scholars of antiquity agree that, as a rule of thumb, we should give preference to sources that are closest to the time of the events they narrate that are insofar as possible not tendentious…The earliest sources at our disposal all portray Jesus apocalyptically. Our later sources–for example John and Thomas–do not. Is this an accident?”[67]
The problem with this ‘just so’ explanation is that it presents an overly simplistic representation of the Gospel portrayals of Jesus. Not only this, but Ehrman neglects to mention that these earliest sources all agree that Jesus rose from the dead. As noted in the previous chapter, 1 Corinthians 15:3 is perhaps the earliest attestation of Christ’s resurrection, predating Paul’s written statement and dating back to the earliest core of Jesus’ followers.

That Jesus’ earliest followers believed that he had risen from the dead is undeniable, a fact that Ehrman himself agrees with. However, in order for his hypothesis to work, Ehrman has to explain why Jesus was believed to have been risen from the dead and ignored the apparent apocalypticism of his teachings. Ehrman claims that the early Christians proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection makes sense if Jesus were a purely apocalyptic prophet because resurrection was believed to occur only at the end of time, and apocalypticists believed that the ends times were upon them, and so probably saw Jesus’ resurrection as heralding the beginning of the end times.[68] This is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was believed that all righteous dead would be resurrected at the end of time, all at the same time. So, Ehrman’s hypothesis requires a modified version of existing beliefs.

Whilst we could easily imagine such apocalyptically minded Jews coming to a conclusion that differed from existing beliefs, it is hard to see how this would have been the case with Jesus’ followers. The main reason for this is because Jesus was publicly flogged, beaten, and crucified. In the honour-shame centric world of the 1st century Mediterranean and Near East, this was the ultimate shame and dishonour.[69] If we assume that Jesus remained dead, then, even if we assume his followers remained loyal to him, it defies explanation why thousands of others came to accept a crucified man as being second to the most high God.

Bizarrely, Ehrman even makes the claim that we don’t know that Jesus’ followers proclaimed his resurrection immediately, arguing the earliest proclamation is to be found in Paul’s writings, dating 20 years after Jesus’ death.[70] However, as aforementioned, the creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15:3 predates Paul’s writing. The core proclamation constituted a creed that was well known amongst Christians during the time of Paul’s writing, dating back to the earliest Church. How Ehrman deals with the resurrection hypothesis also leaves much to be desired. He makes two simple arguments: that the Gospels are contradictory in detail despite being in general agreement, and we couldn’t affirm the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection because ‘miracles’ are outside the scope of history.[71] The problem with the first argument is that even if we grant that this is the case, it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the resurrection hypothesis whatsoever, making it a red herring.

Ehrman’s second argument is simply pure question begging, and the result of equivocation. Ehrman argues that historians can’t establish what really happened, only what probably happened. Since miracles are ‘by definition’ improbable, we can never be justified in affirming the historicity of a miracle. This is merely the same argument put forward by David Hume in the 19th century. Hume defined miracles as ‘violations of nature’ and held them as impossible because he was a deist who held to the uniformity of nature. The problem with both of these ‘definitions’ of ‘miracles’ is that they are particularly nebulous and viciously circular. Indeed, if the evidence suggests that something considered ‘miraculous’ probably occurred, then we are rationally justified in believing that such a thing probably happened, regardless of what the ‘prior probability’ was for its occurrence.

Let us now turn to Crossan’s approach. Crossan’s approach is not entirely dissimilar to that of Ehrman’s. However, whilst Ehrman maintains that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, Crossan maintains that Jesus was a cynic sage. Crossan, like Ehrman, maintains that the Gospel depictions of Jesus are contradictory, biased and consist of mythologised and heavily edited versions of the sayings and deeds of Jesus. Moreover, he thinks the existence of ‘other gospels’ and the status of the four Gospels as canonical renders the canonical Gospel portrayal of Jesus as ‘suspect’:
“It is precisely that fourfold record [the canonical Gospels] that constitutes the core problem… it is disagreement rather than agreement that strikes you most forcibly… The existence of such other gospels [non-canonical works] means that the canonical foursome is a spectrum of approved interpretation forming a strong central vision that was later able to render apocryphal, hidden, or censored any other gospels too far off its right or left wing.”[72]
The problem is that such a hypothesis assumes that which it sets out to prove. The fact that the four Gospels were eventually accepted into an official canon whilst “other gospels” were sidelined to the scrapheap of history does nothing whatsoever to show that the Gospels, the traditions behind them, or those that canonised them cannot be trusted.

Indeed, whilst Crossan’s suggestion is entirely possible, it is also equally possible that the four canonical Gospels were canonised and the apocryphal gospels were rejected for good reasons, rather than purely nefarious ones. The early Church Fathers had certain theological convictions to be sure, but why suppose this means they altered Jesus heavily to suit their image? Indeed, the evidence shows the exact opposite of what Crossan, et al. suggest:
“First, there was never any great pressure within the church to accept certain books as canonical. This makes it all the more impressive that the church came to such firm conclusions about the majority of the books early on, and the rest in due time. Second, because there was no pronouncement, some books naturally were debated, at least in a part of the church… The very lack of a council’s decree allowed the ancient church to wrestle with the legitimacy of these books. And on this score, the most important books were never doubted”.[73]
The canon was not imposed upon the Church via a central authority, but, rather, was a list of books all churches happened to agree were authoritative. Only a handful of books that made the canon were doubted, whereas there were Christian books that were perfectly orthodox that, nevertheless, did not make the canon for other reasons.

As for the non-canonical ‘gospels’ to which Ehrman and Crossan refer, are they just as or even more legitimate a witness to the life of Jesus of Nazareth? If we analyse these other so-called ‘gospels’ in the same manner as the four canonical Gospels and other ancient documents, then we see quite quickly that they contain nothing of any historical worth or significance regarding the life of Jesus of Nazareth. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas, so prized by Crossan and believed by him to be closer to the historical Jesus than the four canonical Gospels, contains material based on Syrian traditions, most notably Tatian’s Diatessaron, which date no earlier than the late 2nd century AD.[74]

However, what of Crossan’s specific view that Jesus was really a Cynic sage? Scholar Craig Evans lists a number of important facts that serve to undercut such a hypothesis. First, several of Jesus’ instructions to his disciples contradicts what Diogenes, founder of cynicism, gave to his followers. Jesus, in fact, instructs his disciples NOT to take certain items with them that were staples of a true cynic.[75] Other chief differences include the fact that Cynics rallied against religion because they thought that the gods were indifferent, whereas Jesus’ teachings were deeply religious, encouraging his followers to devote their lives to God.[76] Secondly, there is no archaeological evidence that shows that Cynics inhabited the nearby city of Sepphoris prior to 70 AD. Moreover, we need also remember the religious history of the Jews who, only a century and a half prior to Jesus’ lifetime, rebelled and waged war against the Greeks.[77]

Crossan’s hypothesis can thus hardly be said to be plausible. Indeed, despite insisting on the need for cross-cultural anthropology and criticising the willingness of scholars to take the New Testament accounts of the life of Jesus seriously, it is rather Crossan whose arguments and hypothesis are found lacking. In the cases of both Ehrman and Crossan we have examples of formerly religious men. In the case of Ehrman, he formerly belonged to a fundamentalist Evangelical background. This is evident in the way Ehrman makes a big deal over the fact that we don’t have the exact wording of the original New Testament despite having a stable textual transmission. Contrary to both his and Crossan’s claims “…in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts.”[78]

Chapter Three: Jesus as Divine
With this group of scholars it should be exceedingly obvious where their biases lie. They are Christians and so obviously have an interest in defending the Christian faith. Obviously committed Christians are going to say that the historical Jesus was the second person of the divine person. The question is to what degree such scholars allow their beliefs to influence their results. We may recall Richard Carrier’s particular derisive comments about those in the scholarly community who defend Christian views.[79] Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan also seem to think that those who defend the orthodox view of Jesus aren’t being true historians.[80] Key in their rejection of even the possibility of the orthodox Christian view being true is a worldview that precludes the possibility of the existence of God.

Now, the question of the existence of God is a philosophical debate, and so it would lead us too far afield to discuss the subject here. What concerns us, however, is can the historian be justified in concluding that God has acted in history? Ehrman, et al. argue that we can never be justified in affirming a ‘miracle’ has occurred, yet if we admit that it is possible that God exists, and that, if God exists, it is possible for God to act in the universe, then, without assuming a stance on these issues either way, what reason is there to preclude the resurrection hypothesis from our pool of live options a priori? It strikes me as being particularly disingenuous to speak on the biases of Christian scholars when you won’t even consider their hypothesis as possible.

Of course, this does not give the resurrection hypothesis a free pass. This hypothesis must be treated just as critically as the other views we have already discussed. Regarding the four canonical Gospels, we have already seen that they are ancient biographies, and that the textual tradition behind their transmission was very reliable. However, this does not establish the Christian view that Jesus was resurrected by God. The basic Christian argument in favour of the resurrection hypothesis is that it meets the criteria for the best explanation mentioned in the introduction, i.e. explanatory scope, etc. This is done by establishing a core group of ‘minimal facts’ from the data, and then arguing that the resurrection best explains these facts.

Chief amongst these facts are as follows: the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and the spread and success of the Christian faith.[81] More specifically, we can include things such as Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, and others add the conversion of Paul, and of James, Jesus’ half-brother.[82] Aside from this we may also add: Jesus’ radical self-understanding (i.e. who he believed himself to be, and what he predicted about himself),[83] and the socio-cultural background of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean.[84] Even if we assume that the Gospel accounts weren’t written by eyewitnesses or based on eyewitness accounts, even if we assume that they weren’t generally reliable, a successful defence of the factuality of these so-called ‘minimal facts’ can nevertheless be maintained.

That Jesus was crucified is not in doubt by any serious historian.[85] Aside from the multiple corroborating non-Christian attestations to this fact,[86] we can also be assured that it would not be something followers of Jesus would want to invent due to the massive social stigma attached to crucifixion.[87] Some critics, however, such as Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan, doubt the historicity of Jesus’ burial tradition. However, again, an understanding of the socio-cultural value of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean reveals that the burial tradition is hardly something the disciples would have invented. Indeed, Jesus’ being purposefully buried away from his family tomb, and by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin rather than by his friends and family, would have been considered a massive dishonour, even if we accept that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple of Jesus.[88]

Romans typically refused burial of crucifixion victims, however they would sometimes permit burial in certain circumstances. Since leaving someone “hanging on a tree” overnight was forbidden in the Torah,[89] then it would have made sense for the Jewish Sanhedrin to bury Jesus themselves, so that they could dishonour Jesus in death whilst still observing Jewish religious laws. Furthermore, the guard outside Jesus’ tomb can also be considered historical for similar reasons. The guards would have been placed there, not just to prevent grave robbing, etc., but also to prevent people from mourning. To not have one’s friends mourn at one’s tomb was also a massive shame and dishonour, and would have been yet another culturally embarrassing detail for the disciples to admit.[90] The historicity of the empty tomb tradition is more widely doubted, albeit still accepted by a wide number of New Testament scholars.

William Lane Craig lists multiple reasons for accepting the historicity of the empty tomb.[91] The first major argument is that the reliability of the burial tradition implies the historicity of the empty tomb. There are multiple strands of reasoning here: first, the site of Jesus’ burial would have been known. Resurrection in Judaism was physical and so the disciples could hardly have begun preaching Jesus’ resurrection had his body still lay in his tomb.[92] Moreover, even if they had, then the authorities could easily have produced Jesus’ body. So, if the burial tradition is accurate, then the tomb of Jesus would have been known, and had the tomb not been empty, belief in Jesus’ resurrection would not have been able to get off of the ground.

The second significant argument is that the burial and empty tomb are widely attested in very early source material, such as the Gospel of Mark, and is implied in the creedal material located in 1 Corinthians 15:3.[93] Moreover, the first discoverers of the risen Jesus and his empty tomb were reported to be women. This is significant because of how women were viewed in the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean.[94] Women were essentially viewed and treated as second-class citizens, and their testimony was considered useless in court. As such, it defies reason why the Gospel writers would have women as the first witnesses to resurrection and empty tomb if they were inventing the account. Lastly, there is strong evidence that in order to observe Jewish customs, religious Jews had a method of identifying bodies and remains after decomposition.

As Craig Evans explains:
“Carefully observing where Jesus is buried and then returning on the Sunday morning to confirm and even mark, for identification, his corpse, is in keeping with Jewish burial customs. After all, m. Sanh. 6.5-6 implies that bodies are still identifiable, long after decomposition of the flesh. How was this done? We don’t know, but evidently the Jewish people knew how to mark or in some way identify a corpse, so that it could be retrieved some time later. We should not allow our ignorance of such customs, or our condescension, to lead us to discount such tradition as implausible.”[95]
All of these points, as well as others not discussed here, lead me to conclude along with Craig, et al. that the empty tomb tradition contained in the Gospels is reliable and historical.

That the disciples saw something that convinced them that Jesus had been risen from the dead by the God of Israel is accepted almost universally. Specifically, it is accepted that the disciples believed that they had not just seen the risen Jesus, but believed that they had spoken to and interacted with him too. Moreover, the creedal material records further appearances of up to 500 other followers who were claimed as witnesses to the resurrection.[96] The conversion of Paul is similarly widely accepted, most likely due to the unanimous consensus that most of the Pauline epistles are authentic. The conversion of James is accepted similarly as the New Testament records that he, along with the rest of Jesus’ family, did not believe his claims about himself. This was an embarrassing detail for the NT authors to admit. This same James, however, is later reported by Christian and non-Christian sources (such as Josephus) that he became a leader in the Church, and was ultimately martyred in Jerusalem.[97]

The socio-cultural data has been covered at length in my BA (Hons) dissertation. Essentially, Christianity violated multiple socio-cultural values and resulted in severe social persecution: “Logically enough, the official response to Christianity was often repression. The new religion had none of the characteristics that would have given it an approved status.”[98] That Christianity spread and succeeded is something so obvious that not even the most radical Christ Myth advocate would conceivably deny, so the only fact requiring justification is Jesus’ radical self-understanding. As we have seen, this is something that is actually disputed by actual scholars. We have seen that both Ehrman’s and Crossan’s respective hypotheses are on shaky ground. However, if we can show that Jesus thought himself as the messiah and divine, then this would effectively bury both hypotheses.

Craig devotes an entire chapter in his work Reasonable Faith to discussing Jesus’ usage of various messianic titles. He writes:
“Unless Jesus himself made messianic pretensions, it is difficult to explain the unanimous and widespread conviction that Jesus was the Messiah. Why, in the absence of any messianic claims on Jesus’ part, would Jesus’ followers come to think of him as Messiah at all, and why was there no non-messianic form of the Jesus movement?”[99]
Indeed, this fact is problematic for those who wish to suppose Jesus made no messianic claims about himself and that such claims were ascribed to Jesus afterwards. As for the specific instances in the New Testament itself, there are too many to recount in their entirety. I shall mention some of the more major instances.

The use of the Son of Man title is one that has confused numerous commentators on the study of the historical Jesus. This title, however, makes sense once we take into account the Old Testament Book of Daniel, specifically the apocalyptic visions describing the end times. The Book of Daniel contains the following passage:
“I continued to observe the vision in the night, and behold, One like the Son of Man was coming with the clouds of heaven, until He came to the Ancient of Days and approached Him. Then dominion, honor, and the kingdom were given to Him, and all peoples, tribes, and languages served Him. His authority is an everlasting authority which shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed.”[100]
Here, the Son of Man is someone who appears human, but is clearly meant to be not just supernatural, but also God’s equal.

It is this to which Jesus refers in his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin, resulting in their charge of blasphemy against him:
“And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it that these men testify against you?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.””[101]
We can see from this example that, aside from answering positively in response to the high priest asking Jesus if he was the Christ, and the Son of God, he also directly alluded to the passage in Daniel that described the Son of Man. Of course we still need to assess if the resurrection hypothesis is the best overall explanation of the data. In the introduction, I mentioned several criteria listed by historian C. Behan McCullagh that a hypothesis must pass before it can be judged to be the best explanation.

In order to answer the question of Christianity’s origins, we need to conclusively account for:
1. Jesus’ claims about himself.
2. Jesus’ crucifixion and burial.
3. The discovery of the empty tomb.
4. The post-mortem appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples.
5. The conversion of Paul and James.
6. The spread and success of Christianity despite its violation of a multitude of socio-cultural values, and despite massive social persecution (as well as the eventual state sanctioned persecution.)
7. The willingness of the disciples and early Christians to suffer persecution and martyrdom for their beliefs.

Any hypothesis must explain all facts together, not only some of the facts. Moreover, the evidence must be made more probable under a certain hypothesis than rival hypotheses. The hypothesis must be implied by a greater variety of existing beliefs, and to a greater degree than rival hypotheses, as well as disconfirmed by fewer existing beliefs, and to a lesser extent than rival hypotheses. The hypothesis must include fewer new suppositions not already implied by the data than rival hypotheses. The hypothesis must include fewer statements believed to be false than rival hypotheses. The hypothesis that best explains the data is the one that exceed rivals in these criteria to such a degree that it is doubtful that new discoveries would overturn the hypothesis.

Let us begin with some of the more plausible naturalistic alternatives to the resurrection hypothesis. For non-theists, it is eminently more plausible that the disciples suffered hallucinations and this hypothesis has indeed been advanced as a possible explanation. In order to assess this particular hypothesis, however, we must consult with the relevant medical data on hallucinations and then compare the Gospel accounts of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to the medical data to see if they match the medical definition of hallucinatory episodes. It may also be helpful to compare the resurrection narratives and accounts to known examples and cases of hallucinations in similar settings. Specifically, we need to consider the phenomenon of mass hallucinations, given the fact that these appearances occurred to groups of people together, rather than to an isolated individual.

For this purpose, I have consulted Zuzne and Jones’ Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behaviour and Experience, which I shall be referring to in regards to the phenomena of hallucinations in general and the phenomenon of mass hallucinations specifically.[102] Zuzne and Jones report that hallucinations can be visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, haptic, kinaesthetic, or organic. Visual hallucinations can range from observing simple light phenomena to the witnesses of life-like life-sized persons who appear to be three-dimensional and solid, cast shadows, and interact with the real life objects around them, rather than walking through walls, etc. Whilst it is possible for the same hallucination to be experienced by two or more individuals, such hallucinations are much more limited in scope. According to Zuzne and Jones, mass hallucinations are limited to certain categories that are determined by the kinds of ideas that people can get excited about as a group.

However, the key element in mass hallucinations is expectation, as it is expectation that plays the coordinating role in collective hallucination. All participants must be informed beforehand, says Zuzne and Jones. Unless at least the general outline of the hallucination is outlined beforehand, mass hallucination simply cannot happen. This is problematic for those wishing to explain the post-mortem appearances as being collective hallucinations. The New Testament narratives are quite clear that the disciples’ had zero expectation of what was to actually come. Moreover, it is made clear that the disciples did not understand what Jesus meant when he predicted his own death and resurrection, most likely because their messianic expectations were in line with the expectations of other Jews. They were expecting a triumphant political leader, a King to lead Israel to rebel against Rome.

Moreover, when we consult the New Testament accounts, they are far more detailed than the kind of experiences to which collective hallucinations are limited. The second major problem is that a collective hallucination simply lacks explanatory scope. It attempts to explain the post-mortem appearances alone, and does not account for any of the other facts. It would have to be conjoined with another hypothesis, and two bad hypotheses don’t make a good one. Therefore, let us move onto other naturalistic hypotheses. Some have suggested that the body of Jesus was stolen. Whilst this might seem plausible to some, we must remember the reliability of the burial tradition of Jesus. The guard in front of Jesus’ tomb were there to prevent mourners, a culturally embarrassing detail. However, even if we assume the guard outside the tomb were fictional, who would have stolen the body?

In order to seriously suggest theft as a plausible hypothesis in the absence of any likely party, it needs to be shown that the theft of bodies was something that generally occurred in 1st century Jerusalem, which is where Jesus was buried. In other words, is there evidence of grave robbers, et al. in 1st century Jerusalem? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so the burden of proof is on those who wish to suggest that such a group would have been in a position to have stolen Jesus’ body. What of those whom we do know about who may have had a motive to have stolen Jesus’ body? The obvious choice is the disciples: they had followed Jesus for a couple of years, and believed him to be the promised messiah. When Jesus was crucified, their messianic hopes would have been shattered.

For this hypothesis to work, we have to suppose that the disciples conspired together to trick people into believing that Jesus had been resurrected. First of all, why would they have turned to resurrection? There were other modes of vindication reserved for Jewish heroes of the faith that were more palatable. Resurrection was not unanimously believed in by all Jews, and was believed to happen at the end of time. Moreover, why would they die for beliefs they knew to be false? Secondly, how were they able to dupe so many people into accepting claims that were so contrary to the current socio-cultural values without some form of convincing evidence? Modern authors like to think of ancient people as superstitious simpletons, however, this is nothing more than chronological snobbery and modern western elitism and bigotry.

As I noted in my BA dissertation, the claims of the disciples would have been investigated. In ancient times, people minded other people’s business, a fact that might shock modern westerners today. Neighbours were expected to keep a constant watch and vigilance over each other so that deviant behaviour would not escape notice.[103] Aside from the core group of disciples, we have the former persecutor of the Church, Paul, as well as Jesus’ sceptical half-brother, James. However, the creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15:3 mentions Jesus appearing to over 500 of “the brethren” at once. These 500 would have been sought out. As hard to believe as resurrection may seem to non-believers, are we to assume that literally nobody bothered to check the facts? Moreover, such a fraud would have become increasingly more difficult to conceal and pull off as more people became involved. Are we to suppose that none of the conspirators got cold feet?

Theft and hallucination are the two most plausible naturalistic hypotheses available, however, as I have shown, they are far from likely or plausible when it comes to explaining the facts. Let us now move to some more outlandish hypotheses. One suggestion is that Jesus didn’t die during his crucifixion, and emerged from his tomb alive. This hypothesis is even more fraught with problems than the previous two. For this to work, we have to assume Jesus was able to survive one of the most brutal methods of execution ever conceived. To underscore just how absurd such a proposition is, I have consulted two different medical reports:
“The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.”[104]
“Death, usually after 6 hours--4 days, was due to multifactorial pathology: after-effects of compulsory scourging and maiming, haemorrhage and dehydration causing hypovolaemic shock and pain, but the most important factor was progressive asphyxia caused by impairment of respiratory movement. Resultant anoxaemia exaggerated hypovolaemic shock. Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones.”[105]

We are also presented with a hypothesis that requires us to suppose that the attending Roman soldiers: a) were unable to tell when a crucifixion victim had died, and b) would have left without making sure that the victim was dead. This contradicts what we know about ancient crucifixion:
“The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.”[106]
However, even if we assume Jesus had survived such a brutal punishment, we need to assume that he was strong enough to escape his tomb, and then somehow persuade the disciples that he had been resurrected.

Some have suggested, however, that belief in the risen Jesus arose from cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon that results from individuals holding to conflicting beliefs simultaneously. Cognitive dissonance is a feeling of discomfort that arises from such a conflict, and leads to individuals resolving such a conflict by altering their beliefs and attitudes, trying to come up with justifications, by denial, or through laying blame at the feet of another party. The most famous example of this kind of phenomena that is used as the classic case example of such a phenomenon occurred with a UFO cult who claimed that they would be visited by aliens at a certain date. When the aliens did not show up, one of the group later claimed to have received instructions from the aliens saying that they had simply been delayed.[107] Is this scenario useful as an explanatory hypothesis regarding the facts surrounding the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity?

This hypothesis suffers from the same problems that plague the hallucination hypothesis. Why did the disciples claim that Jesus was resurrected, rather than resuscitated, or assumed into heaven? Even if we assume all the 500 witnesses were ‘in on it’ (which is highly unlikely for such a scenario), again, are we to assume nobody got cold feet in a socio-cultural climate where they would have faced intense social persecution for their beliefs? This also does not account for the empty tomb, the conversion of Paul and James, etc. This scenario is suggesting that, to save face, the disciples invented a belief system that got them and their followers persecuted and killed. This is assuming that the scenario even matches cases of cognitive dissonance.

Other, more outlandish suggestions include the hypothesis that Jesus had a twin brother, lookalike, or some other doppelganger with whom Jesus conspired to trick people into thinking he had been raised from the dead. This requires us to believe either that Jesus persuaded a lookalike to willingly get crucified in his place, or that Jesus willingly went to his own death so that a lookalike could persuade people he had been resurrected. We also need assume that people would have mistaken a regular human being for a resurrected being, and that nobody ever noticed Jesus or the lookalike ever again. Others have suggested that the disciples accidentally visited the wrong tomb. For this we have to disregard the reliability of the burial tradition, and that the authorities would not have produced Jesus’ body if they had it. This also does nothing to account for the post-mortem appearances, or any of the other facts.

As far as explanatory scope and power go, the resurrection hypothesis adequately explains all of the facts, and all facts are to be expected under such a hypothesis. The only difficulty lies in assessing its plausibility, how ad hoc it is, and its accord with existing beliefs. There are those who argue that the resurrection hypothesis is falsified by the fact that dead people stay dead. However, this is an unsatisfactory argument for a number of reasons. First, we do not know that all dead people stay dead in all circumstances. Rather, we know that people do not rise from the dead naturally. Nobody is suggesting that Jesus rose from the dead via natural processes. Secondly, such a responses clearly begs the question. How do we know that resurrection is impossible? We also do not know for a fact that there is no such being as God. Quite the contrary, there is an overabundance of evidence and reasons to think that there is such a being. Thus, the only thing we need suppose for the resurrection hypothesis that is not included in the facts or observation statements is that the Judeo-Christian God exists.

Conclusion
Having reviewed three different 21st century viewpoints, and the arguments of those who defend such viewpoints, it is now time to see what can be said regarding each position and the views of those we have reviewed. In reviewing the radically sceptical view of Jesus Mythicism, we saw that the arguments put forward to argue that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth were particularly lacking in substance. The entire position revolves around certain assumptions that have long since proven to be erroneous. Robert Price in particular seemed to be arguing from the basis of certain form critical assumptions. His arguments against the existence of Jesus are simply an extension of his allegiance to the defunct school of form criticism.

Richard Carrier’s statements regarding religious believers seem also to betray a hidden bias against supernaturalism and those who take it seriously. As such, his standing in the international non-theist community and his involvement with a large number of pro-atheist and anti-religious movements belay his allegiance to naturalism, as do his own words. Historically, there simply is no justification at all for the position that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. To adopt such a position amounts to nothing less than a total abandonment of the historical method.

In our discussion on the views of more serious critics of Christianity, however, we see a much stronger commitment to correct methodology. Whilst, in my view, Ehrman and Crossan are mistaken, they at least made use of cross-cultural anthropology, etc.. However, again we see an overriding commitment to certain ideologies. Crossan owes much to his association with Robert Funk and the so-called ‘Jesus Seminar’ and their reliance on extra-canonical documents, particularly the Gospel of Thomas. Such a reliance is not borne out of any historical concerns, but of a commitment to more ‘liberal’ views of Jesus as simply a good and moral man. Similarly, Ehrman’s views are a sort of hangover from his fundamentalist Christian days. His obsession over the exact wording of the original New Testament is anachronistic, as we do not need the exact wording to know what the original authors meant.

As such, both authors tend to ignore a lot of evidence that severely challenges their views. Moreover, both authors have stated a refusal to admit the possibility of the resurrection. Any epistemology that rules out certain options a priori is inadequate. We simply cannot rule out certain hypotheses right off of the bat without even considering them, no matter how absurd they might seem to those with certain noetic structures. Nevertheless, despite their refusal to entertain the possibility of resurrection, both Ehrman and Crossan nevertheless do manage to at least get some things right, and they do not adopt notions as radical as those adopted by Price and Carrier, et al. In many cases, some of their pronouncements are very similar to what I and other Christians would say and argue.

Lastly, in assessing the resurrection hypothesis, we took a look at some pronouncements and arguments made by Christian scholars, such as Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig. Craig, far from being a deluded simpleton or a fundamentalist, his approach was very critical and meticulous. For example, Craig, despite being a Christian, does not view a defence of the general reliability of the New Testament documents as being necessary for a defence of the resurrection. We also saw that scholars such as Habermas relied on methods and criteria employed by critical historians. The only thing problematic about the resurrection hypothesis is that it requires the existence of God, an extremely difficult existential question that has been debated for near enough the entirety of human history. Of course, such a debate is outside the bounds of just history alone, not to mention outside the purview of this dissertation.

In conclusion, it seems that the resurrection hypothesis is more serious and worthy of consideration that certain critics would like us to believe, whereas critical views of Jesus are particularly lacking and borne out of allegiances to naturalism, and/or other ideologies. Of course, this same charge could easily be applied to the resurrection hypothesis. As a Christian who defends such a hypothesis, I myself may be blind to such things. Of course, what this means is simply that historians need to be as self-critical as possible. We need to ask ourselves questions about our own beliefs and assumptions, not just questions about opposing views. We also need to be as neutral as possible. We can’t reject certain views a priori just because we disagree with them.

Bibliography:
I have again felt it appropriate to divide my bibliography into ancient and modern sources, including the version of the Bible I have used in the previous discussions.

Ancient Sources: Biblical Text
Old Testament Text: St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008) from The Orthodox Study Bible, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008)
New Testament Text: New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Inc. (1982), from The Orthodox Study Bible, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008)

Endnotes:
[1] C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press, (1984), p19
[2] Acharya S (real name: D. M. Murdock) has a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics according to her personal website, whereas Earl Doherty has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages as mentioned in the preface of the 2005 reprint of his book Jesus, Neither God Nor Man.
[3] Richard Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History, specialising in the area of Roman Science, whereas Robert Price holds a PhD in Systematic Theology and a PhD in New Testament studies. As it stands, these are probably the only academics with somewhat relevant qualifications and who actually defend the Christ Myth hypothesis. There are other academics who defend the Christ Myth hypothesis, but hold no relevant qualifications, such as G. A. Wells, an Emeritus Professor of German. Interestingly, Wells now accepts that there was a historical Jesus, but that the Gospels and the writings of Paul represent legendary embellishments.
[4] This publishing company was founded by American philosopher Paul Kurtz, a prominent sceptic, atheist, and secular humanist who, aside from being the founder of the Council for Secular Humanism, was also the co-founder of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.
[5] James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p15-20, and Robert M. Price, Jesus at the Vanishing Point in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p55-56
[6] James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p15-20
[7] Whilst Price is a former pastor and claims to not be hostile to religion, he nevertheless featured in the strongly anti-religious film The God Who Wasn’t There by Brian Flemming, along with Richard Carrier and others. Both have been involved in numerous debates where they take strong anti-religious positions. Richard Carrier in particular out of the two is an avowed atheist and member of several anti-religious groups and movements, as well as movements promoting secular humanism, atheism, and anti-theism. He has also written a number of books on subjects other than the historical Jesus attacking religion, particularly Christianity. Christ Mythers also promote the idea that Christianity is some kind of global conspiracy aimed at enslaving the entire population of the world on the part of a global cabal of elites who control the world’s main nations. This view is most vocally defended by Acharya S, and also in the anti-religious conspiracy documentary Zeitgeist by Peter Joseph.
[8] Richard C. Carrier, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Prometheus Books, (2012), Kindle Edition preface
[9] Victor Stenger appeals to the Christ Myth hypothesis in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis, Prometheus Books, (2010), Richard Dawkins makes a passing reference to the possibility of the non-existence of Jesus in his book The God Delusion, Bantam Press, (2006), and the late Christopher Hitchens defended the Christ Myth hypothesis in debates. The relevance here is that the New Atheist movement, of which Carrier is a part of, are overwhelming hostile and polemical towards religion.
[10] Richard C. Carrier, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Historical Jesus, Prometheus Books, (2012), Kindle Edition preface
[11] Richard C. Carrier, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Historical Jesus, Prometheus Books, (2012), Kindle Edition preface
[12] Robert M. Price, Jesus at the Vanishing Point in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p55
[13] Robert M. Price, Jesus at the Vanishing Point in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p56
[14] Robert M. Price, Jesus at the Vanishing Point, in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p56
[15] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, InterVarsity Press, (2010), p148
[16] Claude Rawson, The Ultimate Taboo, New York Times, (2000) http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/16/reviews/000416.16rawsont.html (Accessed 19th July 2014)
[17] Linkin’ Kennedy, Snopes.com, Urban Legends Reference Pages, (2013), http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp (Accessed 19th July 2014)
[18] Robert M. Price, Jesus at the Vanishing Point in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p75
[19] Ibid. See also: Robert M. Price, in Brian Flemming, The God Who Wasn’t There, Beyond Belief Media, (2005) at 22:40 minutes.
[20] Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 54, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm (Accessed July 19th 2014)
[21] Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter LXIX, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxix.html (Accessed July 19th 2014)
[22] Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 54, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm (Accessed July 19th 2014)
[23] Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford University Press, (2001), p130 See also: John C. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, T&T Clark International, (2004), p15
"A speaker (apparently Shapash the sun-goddess) addresses Baal (who has, we may assume, been abandoned by El to his fate). As the sequel shows (for the text at this point is missing or hopelessly damaged) she is advising him to procure a substitute in his own image, who will then be sought out and slain by Mot in his stead; the life thus lost will, it seems, be that merely of a calf.”
[24] Jonathan Z. Smith, Dying and Rising Gods, from Mircea Eliade, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume I, Macmillan, (1987), p524
See also:
“Osiris, in fact, was not a 'dying' god at all but a 'dead' god. He never returned among the living; he was not liberated from the world of the dead, as Tammuz was. On the contrary, Osiris altogether belonged to the world of the dead; it was from there that he bestowed his blessings upon Egypt. He was always depicted as a mummy, a dead king.” – Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the gods: a study of ancient Near Eastern religion as the integration of society & nature, University of Chicago, (1978), p289
And:
“The Egyptians never envisaged a bodily resurrection. While the dead are pictured in human form and the underworld is portrayed as an extension of this life, there is never any hint of a return to earth in renewed human bodies.” – Phillip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament, IVP Academic (2002), p232
[25] See:
“The taurobolium appears as a late feature of the cult, being introduced into the rites of Cybele only in c. A.D. 160. Moreover, at first far from being the redemptive ceremony graphically described by Prudentius, it appears to have been a normal sacrifice of a bull for the well-being of the emperor and then for the provider of the sacrificial animal. It was only in c. A.D. 300... that the term was used to describe a ceremony involving a baptism of blood... the stress on the Hilaria as celebrating the resurrection of Attis also appears to increase at the beginning of the fourth century A.D.: the same time as the change in the taurobolium towards being a rite in personal redemption occurred… While these changes could simply be the mutation of a religion over time, they do seem to have been provoked by a need to respond to the challenge of Christianity... This rival, born of a reaction to the Christian agenda, used the symbolism and ethos of the Christian church while claiming them firmly for paganism.” – A. T. Fear, “Cybele and Christ” from Cybele, Attis and Related Cults: Essays in Memory of M.J. Vermaseren, Eugene Lane, ed., Brill (1996), p41-42, 44
[26] Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, Harvard University Press, (1987), p75
[27] Robert M. Price, Jesus at the Vanishing Point in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p63
[28] Contrary to the claims of Price, there is simply no evidence that the entirety of the Testimonium Flavium is a wholesale orgery, let alone a Eusebian one. The evidence shows that a Josephan reference still remains in the absence of any Christian interpolation in the case of the Testimonium Flavium, and that the second reference is completely interpolation free. The same applies to the Tacitean reference. The evidence demonstrates a genuine reference to Jesus, and one that was well-researched.
[29] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Harper One, (2012), p70
[30] Jesus was a rural Galilean Jewish peasant in a social world dominated by wealthy Greco-Roman urbanites and elites. Moreover, Jesus was executed via crucifixion, a death reserved for criminals, and was accused of sedition. He never set foot in Rome, and had absolutely nothing to do with Roman politics. If it had not been for the success of Christianity, we probably would never have even gotten the few secular mentions that we do have.
[31] Robert M. Price, Jesus at the Vanishing Point in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p64-66
[32] Robert M. Price, Jesus at the Vanishing Point in James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views, SPCK, (2010), p67
[33] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Eerdmans, (2002), p242
[34] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Eerdmans, (2002), p246-249
[35] See: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Eerdmans, (2002) and James Patrick Holding, ed., Trusting the New Testament, Xulon, (2010) for comprehensive arguments on the subject from a scholarly and lay perspective respectively.
[36] Richard A. Burridge, What Are The Gospels?: A Comparison With Graeco-Roman Biographies, Eerdmans, (2004), p108-123, p235-236 and Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, InterVarsity Press, (2010), p201-208
[37] Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, Fortress Press, (2006), p5
[38] Richard C. Carrier, The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb, from Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, Prometheus Books, (2005)
[39] Robert M. Price, Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation, from Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, Prometheus Books, (2005)
[40] See: N. T. Wright, The Resurrection and the Son of God, SPCK, (2003)
[41] Ibid.
[42] Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus Time Line, from Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, eds., Contending With Christianity’s Critics, B&H Academic, (2009), p125
[43] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Harper One, (2012), p37
[44] Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, Harper Collins, (2005), p11
[45] John Dominic Crossan and Richard D. Watt, Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press, (1996), px
[46] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Harper Collins, (1993), p174
[47] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999), p44-45
[48] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Harper One, (2012), p72
[49] Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, Trinity Press International, (2000), p48
[50] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999), p43
[51] To be fair to Ehrman, Bauckham’s work was not published until 2006, seven years after the publication of Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
[52] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Eerdmans, (2006), p225
[53] Jerome, On Illustrious Men, Chapter 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm (Accessed July 29th 2014)
[54] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999), p43
[55] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999), p44
[56] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999), p65
[57] Richard A. Burridge, What Are The Gospels?: A Comparison With Graeco-Roman Biographies, Eerdmans, (2004), p235-236
[58] Patricia Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity, University of California Press, (1993), p12
[59] Stephen B. Oates, Biography as History, Waco: Markham Press Fund, (1991), p11
[60] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP, (2010), p203
[61] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, Crossway, (2008), p11
[62] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Harper One, (2012), p71
[63] Bart D. Ehrman, Opening Remarks from Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace, The Textual Reliability of the New Testament: A Dialogue from Robert B. Stewart, ed., The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue, Fortress Press, (2011), p27
[64] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, Kregel, (2006), p71
[65] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, Kregel, (2006), p63
[66] Daniel B. Wallace, Opening Remarks, from Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace, The Textual Reliability of the New Testament: A Dialogue from Robert B. Stewart, ed., The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue, Fortress Press, (2011),p41-42
[67] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999), p128
[68] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999), p232-233
[69] I discussed this at length in my BA (Hons) Dissertation. For more, see: Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, Fortress, (1977)
[70] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999), p229
[71] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, p227-229
[72] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Harper One, (1993), pxiv-xv
[73] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, Kregel, (2006), p132
[74] Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, IVP, (2007), p74-77
[75] Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, IVP, (2007), p107
[76] Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, IVP, (2007), p111
[77] Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, IVP, (2007), p114-119
[78] Steven Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, Hendrickson Publishers (1992), p169-70
[79] Richard C. Carrier, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Prometheus Books, (2012), Kindle Edition preface
[80] Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Harper One, (2012), p72 and John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Harper One, (1993), pxv
[81] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, Crossway, (2008), p360-361
[82] See Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel, (2004) and Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, IVP, (2010)
[83] See Chapter 7 of William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, Crossway, (2008)
[84] This was the subject of my BA (Hons) Dissertation. For more, see also: James Patrick Holding, Defending the Resurrection, Xulon, (2010)
[85] The only people who would deny such a fact would be proponents of the Christ-Myth hypothesis. Such individuals can hardly be called serious historians.
[86] For example: Tacitus, Annals, 15.44, Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0078:book=15:chapter=44 (Accessed 13th 2014) and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html (Accessed 13th August 2014)
[87] Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, Fortress, (1977), p22 and Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, Fortress, (1998), p263-264
[88] This was discussed at length in my BA (Hons) Dissertation. For more see: Byron C. McCane, Where No One Had Yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial, from B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill (1998)
[89] Deuteronomy 21:23, Old Testament Text: St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008) from The Orthodox Study Bible, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008), p237-238
[90] Byron C. McCane, Where No One Had Yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial, from B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill (1998), p444
[91] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, Crossway, (2008), p361-371
[92] See: N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, SPCK, (2003)
[93] Whilst the longer ending narrating the resurrection appearances was not original to Mark, the original ending of Mark still included the discovery of the empty tomb by the women disciples. As a side note, the argument can be made that, whilst the ending of Mark is indeed not original, Mark originally was not intended to finish where it does and that the longer ending was added to replace an original ending that was lost.
[94] Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality, Westminster John Knox Press, (1996), p72, p82, and David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity, InterVarsity Press, (2000), p33
[95] Craig A. Evans, Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3/2 (06, 2005), p233-248. See also: Dale Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, T and T Clark, (2005), p318 and Byron McCane, Roll Back the Stone, Trinity Press International, (2003), p11, 14, 47, 54.
[96] The resurrection appearances are described in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, and further appearances are described in Acts 1:1-11; 9:3-9; 22:6-11; 26:-12-18; 7:55; and also in 1 Corinthians 15:3. The creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3 is important because it dates so early.
[97] For example, see: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html, (Accessed August 16th 2014)
[98] D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burstein, The Ancient World: Readings in Social and Cultural History, Third Edition, Pearson, New Jersey (2006), p318
[99] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, Crossway, (2008), p302
[100] Daniel 7:13-14, Old Testament Text: St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008) from The Orthodox Study Bible, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008), p1253
[101] Matthew 26:62-65, New Testament Text: New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Inc. (1982), from The Orthodox Study Bible, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008), p1323
[102] Leonard Zuzne and Warren J. Jones, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behaviour and Experience, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (1982), p135, p182 See also: Dale Allison Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters T&T Clark, (2005), p289-292
[103] Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality, Westminster John Knox Press, (1996), p183
[104] William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, On The Physical Death of Jesus Christ, The Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (11, 1986), p1455-1463
[105] FP Retief, and L Cilliers, The History and Pathology of Crucifixion, South African Medical Journal 92 (112, 1993), p938-941
[106] Ibid.
[107] Leon Festinger and J. M. Carlsmith, Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, p203-211, Leon Festinger, H.W. Riecken, and S. Schachter, When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World, University of Minnesota Press, (1956) and P. gosling, P. M. Denizeau, and D. Orbele, Denial of Responsibility: a new Mode of Dissonance Reduction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, p722-733